Pharma — India Patent Cases
967 decisions indexed
Page 19 of 33 · 967 total
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application (No. 3679/DELNP/2015) for 'Preparation of Live Vaccines' due to lack of novelty and inventive step. The court first addressed applications regarding exemption from affidavits, filing additional documents, and condonation of delay.
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller Of Patents
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order dated October 29, 2021. The original rejection was based on non-patentability under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, and lack of clarity.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.Arrow Coated Products Ltd. (Acpl)
Shilpa Medicare Limited appealed an order that returned its plaint filed in Raichur. The suit sought a declaration that their manufacturing process was not covered by Patent IN 200301, which Arrow Coated Products Ltd. held. The appeal challenged the Trial Court's decision regarding territorial jurisdiction.
Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited v.Pinaki Chunilal Bhattacharya
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited against Pinaki Chunilal Bhattacharya. The suit involved claims of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the pharmaceutical brand 'GLIMET'. The court found that the impugned mark 'DLYMET' was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered mark, especially since both were intended for medicinal preparations. Given the strong prima facie case and the risk of irreparable injury, the court ordered a temporary restraint on the defendant's use of the disputed mark.
Pfizer Inc & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Pfizer Inc & Ors filed a suit for permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement of patent IN 218291 covering the drug 'Palbociclib'. The parties subsequently entered into an amicable settlement agreement, which was recorded by the Court.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
This order addressed various interlocutory applications in the commercial suit filed by Bayer Healthcare Llc against MSN Laboratories Private Limited. The court allowed several procedural requests, including granting time extensions and allowing additional documents. It also noted that the defendant had not yet launched its product and directed it to maintain status quo.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical appealed the Controller's order refusing a patent application for a medicament combination involving Brexpiprazole, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-reasoned and procedurally flawed, particularly because the Respondent introduced new prior art documents (D2 and D3) without giving the Appellant an opportunity to respond. The High Court found the impugned order vitiated due to procedural infirmities and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Pfizer Inc v.Azista Industries Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking an injunction against Azista Industries Private Limited for infringing patent no. IN 218291, which covers the pharmaceutical product 'Palbociclib'. After considering the submissions and assurances given by the Defendants that they would not manufacture or sell the product in India, the Court decreed the suit.
M/s.Micro Labs Limited v.Mr.A.Santhosh
M/s. Micro Labs Limited filed a civil suit against Mr. A. Santhosh alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AVAS' and copyright in its label by the use of the deceptively similar mark 'AVASLIP'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits. However, the Madras High Court rejected the plaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement stipulated under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its...
The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the unauthorized sale and distribution of Baricitinib, a drug used for rheumatoid arthritis, which allegedly infringes the plaintiff's patent. The case also involves claims for damages and delivery up.
M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.M/S Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s appeal, upholding a Commercial Court order that restrained Maan from using the trademark 'BUPROEX'. The court found that Mindwave Healthcare was the registered proprietor of the mark and that evidence suggested Maan acted as a third-party manufacturer or contract manufacturer. This ruling reinforces the principle that registration rights hold significant weight against claims of prior use by manufacturers, especially when correspondence supports the relationship.
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound 'Alectinib'. The Defendant initially claimed research use only, but subsequently provided an affidavit undertaking not to commercially launch Alectinib until the patent expires or is found invalid. The court accepted these undertakings and decreed the suit.
Ds Biopharma Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Ds Biopharma Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller. The Appellant argued that the grounds for rejection, particularly under Section 3(d), were not properly specified in the hearing notice, violating natural justice. The Court found that the Appellant lacked adequate opportunity to respond to the specific objection under Section 3(d).
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh Co v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
The plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing/importing generic versions of medicines covered by their Indian Patent No. 243301, which relates to Linagliptin compounds. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a good prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing products.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals & Others v.MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Plaintiffs, exclusive licensees of a patent holder (Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation), filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and marketing Canagliflozin Tablets/Capsules, which falls under Indian Patent No. 232231. The defendant opposed the interim injunction, arguing that damages could be quantified and there was no irreparable loss. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Novartis appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application, which was held by the Controller to be non-maintainable because it belonged to the same broad class as the granted parent application. The appeal challenged the ground that the subject matter formed a single inventive concept.
Msn Laboratories Private Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
The petitioner filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to revoke patent number 247381 covering APIXABAN. The court allowed notice and directed the completion of pleadings within prescribed timelines.
Novartis A G v.Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals
The suit was decreed for the lifetime of Indian Patent No. 237430, prohibiting the defendants from manufacturing or selling pharmaceutical preparations containing Nilotinib.
M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Union Of India & Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals challenging an IPAB order that directed the cancellation of its registered trademark 'VEGA ASIA'. The court upheld the IPAB's finding regarding prior use by the respondent, noting that while the petitioner argued for earlier adoption and assignment rights, the evidence presented by the respondent was sufficient to establish their claim of user since 2001. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required when challenging rectification orders before a High Court.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Protrition Products Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Protrition Products Llp & Ors. The court found that despite having registrations in unrelated classes (29 and 30), the defendants were using deceptively similar marks, such as ABBZORB NUTRITION, for goods like whey protein which fall within the plaintiff's registered Class 5 pharmaceutical category. The judgment emphasized that once a defendant is aware of an existing mark, they must exercise caution to avoid infringement in related classes and goods.
Jansen Pharmaceuticals & Others v.Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, who are exclusive licensees of the patent holder (Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation), filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and marketing Canagliflozin Tablets/Capsules, thereby infringing Indian Patent No. 232231. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
M/S Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.M/S Conset Pharma Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Torque Pharmaceuticals against Conset Pharma. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the pharmaceutical product HEMOPLUS. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the deceptive similarity between 'HEMOPLUS' and the Defendants' trademark 'CONSET HEEMOPULS,' particularly given the low threshold for confusion in the pharmaceutical sector. This immediate relief prevents the Defendants from continuing to manufacture or sell similar products until the final hearing.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Harman Finochem Limited
The suit was filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp seeking permanent injunction against Harman Finochem Limited for infringing Patent No. 209816 related to Sitagliptin. Although an interim injunction had been granted earlier, the matter reached a settlement as the patent expired during the pendency of the suit. The Defendant agreed to pay partial litigation costs.
Pfizer Inc v.Azista Industries Private Limited
The suit was filed by Pfizer Inc seeking an injunction against the infringement of Patent No. IN 218291, which covers the pharmaceutical product 'Palbociclib'. The court condoned the delay in filing replications and made the existing ad-interim injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Competition Commission Of India
Vifor International Ltd. challenged the orders of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which initiated an inquiry into its licensing practices regarding the patent for Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM). Vifor argued that the CCI was exceeding its jurisdiction by seeking commercially sensitive information related to a patented product, touching upon rights under the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it premature and noting that the CCI would consider the petitioner's objections.
Novartis A G v.Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Novartis A G filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited for infringing its patent (IN 237430) covering the drug molecule Nilotinib. The dispute arose after the Defendant submitted bids to a government tender using the patented substance. During the proceedings, the Defendants conceded that they had no intention to manufacture or sell the preparation during the patent's lifetime. Consequently, the court decreed the suit for permanent injunction, contingent upon the filing of an affidavit detailing existing stock and an undertaking to comply with the decree.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 (Patentee) seeking dismissal of revocation petitions on the grounds of being time-barred. The court held that since no specific limitation is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision. Furthermore, interim stay applications were dismissed as the patent was already granted and injunctions had been granted elsewhere.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 seeking dismissal of revocation petitions concerning patent IN 243301 (Linagliptin) on the grounds that they were time-barred. The Court held that since no specific limitation period is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The suit was filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking rendition of accounts and recovery of money against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Patent No. IN212714. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which the Court accepted and decreed the suit in terms of that agreement.
Incyte Holding Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Incyte Holding Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8686/DELNP/2010) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal was filed after a considerable delay of 530 days. The court condoned this delay, allowing the main appeal to proceed.
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.