Pharma — India Patent Cases
971 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 33 · 971 total
Integrace Private Limited v.Mas Pharmachem And Anr.
Integrace Private Limited sued Mas Pharmachem for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendant's mark 'BON K2 FORTE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'BON-K2', both used for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants failed to appear or file a written statement, and the suit proceeded as an undefended suit. The Bombay High Court found the defendants had adopted the impugned mark in a dishonest and mala fide manner to ride upon the plaintiff's goodwill, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff with injunctive relief and costs, though damages were denied for lack of evidence.
Linux Laboratories Private Limited v.Ms Univentis Medicare Limited And 3 others
Linux Laboratories Private Limited filed a suit against Ms Univentis Medicare Limited and others for trademark infringement of their registered trademark EPITRAZ. The parties settled the dispute among themselves and filed a Settlement Agreement, which was recorded by the court. The suit was disposed of on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with no order as to costs.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd sought an ex parte ad interim injunction against Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd for infringement of its ZEST family of trademarks. The court granted the injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks. The plaintiff had made significant investments in advertising its products under the ZEST trademarks and had generated considerable income. The defendant's use of the CELSIUSDIZEST mark was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Walter Healthcare Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court declared the trademark CALPOL as a well-known trademark in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to its long-standing reputation and extensive use in India. The court recognized the significant commercial presence and recognition of the mark CALPOL in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical products. The defendant was restrained from using the WALPOL mark, which was deemed deceptively similar to the CALPOL mark.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Meghmani Lifesciences Limited
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a commercial suit against Meghmani Lifesciences Limited for infringement of its registered trademark 'RACIRAFT'. The court found that the defendant's mark 'ESIRAFT' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark and granted an injunction. The court applied the test of phonetic similarity and first impression to determine the likelihood of confusion. The decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN414518 and its removal from the Register of Patents. The respondent submitted that the patent in question had already been revoked, which was acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Basil Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr., filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 294424) related to the compound Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications and subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, while also granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products.
Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit seeking an interim injunction against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories concerning their patented composition involving semaglutide. The court heard arguments, noted affidavits from both sides, and allowed procedural applications while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings.
Novartis Ag v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Private Limited
This order addresses several interlocutory applications filed by Novartis Ag against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed additional documents, while also considering arguments regarding the scope of the defendants' license under the Patents Act.
Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201817048074) by the Controller General, which was based on non-patentability under Section 3(d). The appeal challenged the decision to reject the application despite submissions regarding improved therapeutic efficacy and stability data.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr.
Sanofi - Aventis appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appellant argued that the impugned order was perverse because it failed to adequately address arguments concerning lack of inventive steps and should have been based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Mati Therapeutics Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mati Therapeutics Inc filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents and Designs. The court order addressed arguments regarding the possibility of amending patent claims to comply with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, and whether such amendments could be reviewed at a de novo stage.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to expedite the consideration of their Indian Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011, which had been pending for over 15 years despite multiple pre-grant oppositions being filed. The Court noted the unacceptable delay and directed the Respondents to decide the application and all related oppositions as expeditiously as possible within four months.
Pharma Cinq, Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Pharma Cinq, Llc filed an appeal challenging an earlier order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning Indian Patent Application no. 202017028792. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to filing procedures.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed a rejection of its interlocutory injunction application regarding the import and sale of Semaglutide, claiming infringement of its patent. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the suit patent was set to expire shortly, but also found prima facie evidence suggesting the suit patent could be challenged for obviousness based on prior art (Genus Patent IN'964).
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Lupin Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against Lupin Limited regarding the public display of a specific product by the defendant. The court accepted that if the defendants modify their website to include an asterisk stating 'for the purposes of research under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970', it would suffice to address the plaintiff's grievance.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed against a single judge's decision regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition (CO (COMM. IPD-PAT) 38/2022). The core issues were whether a revocation petition could survive after the patentee pleaded invalidity in an infringement suit, or if it could continue after the patent expired by efflux of time.
Fertin Pharma A/S v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fertin Pharma A/S appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (no. 202017042442). The High Court found that the rejection order was cryptic, lacked clarity of objection, and failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the claims based on prior art documents D1-D3.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringing Indian Patent 369150 related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff later sought conditional withdrawal, arguing that the defendant was using a different plant species (Rauwolfia Vomitoria) and thus there was no current cause of action. However, the court found evidence suggesting the defendant was indeed using Rauwolfia tetraphylla, leading it to deny the permission for withdrawal.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court heard arguments regarding a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). The court settled several issues, including ownership and potential grounds for revocation. Subsequently, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to expedite evidence recording and constituted a confidentiality club upon application by the Defendant.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v.The Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V challenged the issuance of an impugned notice based on the fourth pre-grant opposition, arguing that the delay in deciding previous oppositions was causing undue hardship and delaying the grant of patent for its compound acalabrutinib (Calquence). The court directed the Patent Office to decide all pending pre-grant oppositions within a stipulated time frame and ensure any new opposition raises fresh grounds.
Manu Chaudhary v.Controller Of Patents And Design
Manu Chaudhary appealed the refusal of his patent application (IN 201711047431) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was primarily based on the lack of National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval. The High Court found that since the appellant had applied for NBA approval, the Controller should have deferred the final order instead of refusing the patent application.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The suit concerned alleged infringement of Patent No. 229051 by the Defendant regarding Valsartan and Sacubitril products. Since the subject patent IN'051 expired, the parties reached an amicable settlement which was recorded by the court.
Topotarget Uk Limited v.The Controller General Of Patent And Designs, Mumbai and Ors.
Topotarget UK Limited appealed a rejection order against its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition (PXD101 with an in situ salt former). The rejection was based on insufficiency of disclosure, lack of inventive step, and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court found that the Controller misconstrued the invention as a salt per se, failing to consider the multi-component nature of the composition.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application (No. 201717022856) due to lack of inventive step. The appellant sought permission to amend its claims, which were subsequently accepted by the High Court provided they did not broaden the scope of the original claims.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rekin Pharma regarding trademark infringement, passing off, and domain name misuse. The core dispute revolved around the similarity between 'REXCIN' (Petitioner) and 'REKIN-SP' (Respondent), particularly concerning pharmaceutical goods in Class 5. The court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish continuous use of REXCIN as a source identifier for Class 5 products.
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd v.The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller's decision refusing its divisional patent application for 'PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF PEMETREXED'. The refusal was based on the prior refusal of the mother application. However, since the mother application was subsequently granted, the High Court found the reason for refusal no longer tenable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh for infringing Patent No. 209816, which covers SITAGLIPTIN. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding substantial compensatory, exemplary, and costs damages.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The suit was filed alleging infringement of Patent No. 269841 (IN'841) by Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd regarding the compound Ruxolitinib. After discussions, the Defendant provided an undertaking that they would not commercialize the patented compound during the patent's validity. The court accepted this undertaking and disposed of the suit on consent terms.
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.