Pharma — India Patent Cases
730 decisions indexed
Page 19 of 25 · 730 total
Plaintiff No. 1 v.Defendants
The plaintiffs, owners of two patents covering the compound LINAGLIPTIN and its derivatives, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing LINAGLIPTIN tablets under the brand name BRLENTA-5 without consent. The court found a prima facie case for injunction.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 209816 covering Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor used to treat Diabetes Mellitus Type II. The court issued an order granting an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products until further hearing.
Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v.Dalas Biotech Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking discovery through interrogatories in a suit alleging infringement of their patent for Amoxicillin Trihydrate. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's process description was ambiguous and evasive, hiding the use of immobilized enzymes and specific acids. However, the court dismissed the application, finding it amounted to a roving inquiry and stating that the issues could be addressed through cross-examination.
Pharmacyclics Llc. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a commercial suit filed by Pharmacyclics Llc. against Alkem Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Patent IN 262968. The court noted that the plaintiffs had other related suits pending before different benches regarding the same patent. Consequently, the court ordered the listing of the current suit for further consideration.
H Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drug Ltd.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their patent (IN 227963) by manufacturing and exporting substantial quantities of the anti-depressant drug Vortioxetine. The court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, considering the allegations of export and potential use under Section 107 of the Patents Act.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The commercial suit for patent infringement regarding the drug Sitagliptin was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Plaintiffs) and Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1). The court accepted the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against Defendant No. 1.
M/S Sami -Sabinsa Group Limited v.Union Of India
M/S Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited filed a writ petition seeking an interim order to stay the execution of a notice and requesting that respondents refrain from opposing their pending patent applications. The court subsequently granted leave for the petitioners to withdraw the petition.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Micro Labs Limited, Zydus Healthcare Ltd., ERIS Lifesciences Ltd., USV Pvt. Ltd., MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought permanent and temporary injunctions against various defendants for infringing their patents related to Dapagliflozin. The court found that the defendants had laid a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, leading the court to decline the grant of interim injunction.
ASTRAZENCA AB & ANR v.AJANTA PHARMA LTD.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent IN '625. The present order addressed the defendant's request for an early hearing, noting that in connected suits, the court had previously declined interim injunctions.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca sued Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited regarding two patents, IN 147 (genus) and IN 625 (species), covering the SGLT2 inhibitor Dapagliflozin (DAPA). The core dispute was whether DAPA, which is used to treat type-II diabetes, falls within the scope of the genus patent. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' applications.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's product infringes their patent for a pharmaceutical composition consisting of sacubitril and valsartan. The defendant claims their product is different and has filed for revocation of the suit patent.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The case involves requests for injunctions against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Indoco Remedies Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to sell approximately 58,000 strips of its generic product APIXABID (Apixaban), which had been manufactured prior to a restrictive injunction being passed by the Single Judge. The court dismissed the application, holding that without a decision on the merits, it could not reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge.
Astrazeneca AB & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The plaintiffs presented an overview of their case. Since the defendant challenged the validity of the suit patent (IN-235625), the court directed the defendant to present arguments on that matter.
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. v.MICRO LABS LIMITED
The plaintiff, AstraZeneca, filed a suit alleging infringement of its genus (IN 147) and species (IN 625) patents for the drug DAPAGLIFLOZIN (brand name FORXIGA). The defendant, Micro Labs Limited, was accused of manufacturing, selling, and seeking approval for generic versions. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Astrazenca Ab v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
Astrazenca filed a suit alleging that West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. was manufacturing the drug Dapagliflozin, which is protected by Astrazenca's patents (IN '147 and IN '625). The defendant entered an undertaking acknowledging the validity of the patents and agreeing not to infringe them.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs sought revival of an earlier interim order restraining the defendant from manufacturing pharmaceutical preparations comprising 'Ceritinib'. The court noted that the initial order was suspended due to the suit patent being revoked. However, since the IPAB subsequently stayed the revocation order, the court revived the original ad interim relief.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash certain respondent orders and obtain a declaration that patent IN 235625 has lapsed. The court noted the contention regarding delay and latches, which needs to be decided first.
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Cleanchem Laboratories Llp
The plaintiffs, owners of Indian Suit Patent IN 209816 for SITAGLIPTIN, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was selling and dealing in SITAGLIPTIN without a license. The court found prima facie evidence of violation and granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Union Of India
Astrazeneca challenged an order from the Patent Office that directed immediate publication of its granted patent (IN 235625) due to a clerical error. The petitioner argued that this belated direction, after 11 years, would prejudice them by effectively extending the statutory limitation period for post-grant opposition beyond one year as stipulated in Section 25(2).
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH & Anr. v.Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and its associates filed a suit alleging that Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. was infringing on their patented compound, Rivaroxaban (IN 211300). The plaintiff contended that the defendant was exporting finished pharmaceutical products containing Rivaroxaban to foreign entities in commercial quantities. Despite the lack of domestic launch by the defendant, the court held that such exports constituted 'use in India' under the Patents Act. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bayer.
Astrazenca Ab v.Ajanta Pharma Ltd.
The court heard an application seeking condonation of a 6-day delay by the defendant, which was granted. The court also directed the parties regarding the filing of written statements and clarified the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) held by Astrazenca Ab.
Astrazenca Ab & Anr v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard the matter concerning suit patents held by Astrazenca Ab & Anr against West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. The court addressed the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) and accepted an undertaking from the defendant that they do not manufacture or sell infringing products related to Dapagliflozin.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Honour Lab Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Honour Lab Limited was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN (an API for diabetes treatment). The plaintiffs sought interim relief against the defendant's alleged commercial supply of the patented API.
Laurus Labs Limited v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The petitioner seeks to quash an interim order by the IPAB that stayed the revocation of a patent. The case involves a post-grant opposition filed by the petitioner against the patent granted to respondent No.3.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where the Plaintiff was granted a permanent injunction and compensation for loss of profits. The Defendants were directed to render accounts of profits and pay a specified amount to the Plaintiff.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking action under Contempt of Court because defendant No.1 submitted a tender offering for the sale of Apixaban, despite a prior interim injunction restraining them from dealing in any infringing product covered by Indian Patent No. IN 247381. The court issued show cause notices to the Chairman and Director of defendant No.1 regarding potential contempt proceedings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Angels Pharma India Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Angels Pharma India Private Limited was attempting to manufacture and infringe its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted interim relief.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.