Pharma — India Patent Cases
730 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 25 · 730 total
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Morepen Laboratories Ltd
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh filed a suit against Morepen Laboratories Ltd alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 211300, which covers Rivaroxaban. The defendant admitted to making commercial use before expiry due to a miscommunication regarding the patent's expiration date. Both parties agreed that the suit could be decreed in terms of permanent injunction, leading to the final disposal of the case.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp And Anr v.Oceanic Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin and its salts. The plaintiff submitted evidence showing the defendant's online presence advertising and selling infringing Sitagliptin Phosphate API in India. Based on this prima-facie case, the court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing in the infringing product.
Pfizer Inc v.Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging infringement of two Indian Patents, IN 209251 (Sunitinib) and IN 268331 (Tigecycline composition). The defendants agreed to the permanent injunction and offered compensation. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Everest Organics Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Organics Limited for infringing its registered patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was developing and preparing to commercialize an infringing product. Based on the prima facie case presented, the Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Pfizer Inc. v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Pfizer Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 241773 and 218212, which cover Tofacitinib (XELJANZ(R)). The plaintiffs alleged that defendants were illegally manufacturing and selling generic versions under the brand 'TOFAXEN'.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, holding patents and licenses for Sitagliptin (under trade names ISTAVEL and ISTAMET), filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling the drug under the brand name TwoTrack, thereby infringing their patent. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction.
Prof. Dr. Claudio De Simone & Next Gen Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v.Actial Farmaceutica Srl. (Formerly known as CD Investment Srl.) & Ors.
The plaintiffs, claiming ownership over the 'De Simone Formulation' through patent rights and subsequent Know-How agreements, filed suit against CD Group entities. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff retained proprietary rights (trade secrets) after the initial patent expired in 2015. The court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without a valid patent right in India, the plaintiffs lacked a personal cause of action to restrain the defendants from working or selling the formulation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiff, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Triveni Interchem Private Limited, was selling and advertising various compositions of Sitagliptin without taking any license. The plaintiff holds a valid patent for Sitagliptin.
Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Emami Limited
This order sheet details an application filed by Emami Limited seeking the transfer of a title suit from the Additional District Judge to the Calcutta High Court. The original suit involved allegations of infringement concerning trademark, passing off, copyright, and design against Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. Citing Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, the court allowed the transfer application.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Jigs Chemicals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Jigs Chemicals Limited for infringing its patents covering the anti-platelet drug TICAGRELOR. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was commercially advertising and offering to sell API TICAGRELOR. Based on the defendant's admission regarding the exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Astrazeneca.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
This case involves an application by Defendant No. 3 seeking to restrict the participation of the plaintiffs' internal expert, Dr. Samir Sagitrao, in the inspection of confidential clinical and pre-clinical test data related to a biosimilar drug. The court ultimately dismissed the applicant's request, emphasizing that defendants have a right to defend the suit without being deprived of opportunity due to non-disclosure.
Lupin Ltd. v.Union Of India And Ors.
Lupin Ltd. challenged the NPPA's stance that it should have sought prior permission before launching an FDC drug (Empagliflozin and Metformin Hydrochloride), relying on a product patent exemption under Para 32(i) of DPCO, 2013. The court recognized the legal ambiguity regarding whether prior approval or mere intimation is required to avail this exemption.
Novartis Ag v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
The plaintiffs own the patent for the compound 'NILOTINIB', which is valid until July 4, 2023. The defendant announced the launch of a product based on NILOTINIB, which the plaintiffs claim infringes their patent.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The plaintiffs, owners of Patent IN-381 covering the molecule APIXABAN (Eliquis®), filed a suit against Bdr Pharmaceuticals for allegedly manufacturing and intending to supply generic versions of this patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding infringement and the validity of the patent based on prior art documents submitted by the defendant.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Natco Pharma
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma for infringing Indian Patent No.IN247381 (APIXABAN). The defendant sought a stay under Section 10 CPC, citing a previously instituted suit in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad concerning patent validity and infringement. The High Court dismissed the stay application.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v.Tanmed Pharma India Private Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sued Tanmed Pharma for infringing its patents related to the medicinal product Linagliptin. The court conducted an inspection and found that the defendant had neither manufactured nor marketed the drug, having surrendered its manufacturing license.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited and MSN Laboratories Limited for infringing their patents related to the pharmaceutical compound TICAGRELOR, marketed as BRILINTA. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the defendants' generic versions (TICAPLAT and TIARE).
Shalina Laboratories Private Limited v.Maxwell Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing interim injunctions granted to Shalina Laboratories against Maxwell Life Science. The dispute centered on trademark infringement ('SUPER APETI' vs 'SUPER PEPTI'), copyright infringement related to packaging/trade dress, and passing-off concerning pharmaceutical preparations. By confirming these orders, the court maintained the status quo, ensuring the Plaintiff's rights were protected while the main commercial IP suit proceeds.
M/s Genentech Inc. v.Drugs Controller General Of India
Genentech Inc. appealed an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court which had altered the protective conditions previously set by the Single Judge concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug 'TrastuRel' (manufactured by Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.). The dispute centered on Genentech's patent rights over the monoclonal antibody drug 'Trastuzumab'.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Union Of India And Ors.
This petition challenged the Controller's decision allowing an opponent to file additional evidence during a pending post-grant opposition. The petitioner argued that such late filings violated procedural timelines and prejudiced their case. While acknowledging the need for timely disposal of oppositions, the Court ultimately held that since the petitioner had already responded to the new evidence, it was appropriate for the Controller to consider all pleadings and documents when rendering the final decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 for the drug Sitagliptin by manufacturing and selling a product named 'Swizglipt' containing Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate (SPM). The dispute centered on whether manufacture solely for export fell under patent infringement, and the court ultimately confirmed the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's order regarding a patent application, arguing that prior arts were not adequately considered. The court examined the matter and held that since there are efficacious alternative statutory remedies (post-grant opposition or revocation), the writ petition would not be entertained.
Pfizer Inc v.Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents covering Sunitinib and Axitinib. The parties subsequently reached a settlement through mediation before the Delhi High Court.
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents' orders that restricted its right to cross-examine expert witnesses during a post-grant opposition filed by Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the patentee, having filed objections under Rule 58, was entitled to challenge the veracity of the opponent's experts through cross-examination. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Onyx, quashing the restrictive orders and allowing the cross-examination without imposing any condition regarding the filing of evidence by the patentee.
Reliance Life Sciences Private Limited v.M/S Genentech Inc And Ors.
This case involves a dispute between Reliance Life Sciences (the appellant) and Genentech/Roche (the respondents) concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug TrastuRel. The respondents sought an injunction against TrastuRel, alleging inadequate testing under Indian regulatory guidelines despite the original patent having lapsed. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, granting an interim stay on the restrictive order, thereby allowing Reliance to continue its manufacturing and marketing operations.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for its patented drug, Ceritinib. Natco Pharma challenged this by relying on an order from the Controller revoking the patent due to lack of novelty. The Court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the infringement action could not be maintained, suspending the existing interim manufacturing restraint.
Astrazeneca Ab v.P Kumar & Anr
Astrazeneca filed suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for marketing generic versions of TICAGRELOR, claiming infringement of three Indian Patents (IN 907, IN 984, IN 674). The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could secure an interim injunction while the patents faced credible challenges to their validity. The court ultimately found that since the defendants raised strong questions rendering the patent vulnerable, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Natco Pharma Ltd challenged an interim injunction restraining it from infringing Indian Patent IN No.247381, which was held by Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and its subsidiaries. The appeal focused on whether the Single Judge had properly considered the merits of the case before issuing a restrictive order. The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the impugned interim injunction, directing that the application for interim relief be heard again on merits.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bayer Healthcare Llc
This appeal challenged an interim injunction restraining Natco Pharma Limited from infringing Bayer Healthcare Llc's Indian Patent No. 240207, which covers the drug Regorafenib. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient clarity and did not adequately consider the parties' submissions regarding infringement. Consequently, the court set aside the interim injunction and directed that the application for interim relief be heard afresh on its merits by the Single Judge.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Union Of India & Ors
Mylan Laboratories Limited challenged an order that granted a patent for 'Methods of Evaluating Peptide Mixtures' after dismissing their pre-grant opposition. The petitioner sought urgent relief as the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was non-functional due to long-standing vacancies in its Technical Member positions, leading to a logjam of appeals. The Delhi High Court addressed this systemic issue by invoking the doctrine of necessity, ruling that IPAB can continue hearing urgent matters related to Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights even with vacant technical posts.
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.