Pharma — India Patent Cases
742 decisions indexed
Page 21 of 25 · 742 total
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 The Court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the infringement action could not be maintained, suspending the existing interim manufacturing restraint.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.
Regarding Hike In Prices Of Generic Medicines Medicines. on 18 July, 2019 v.Ex Parte
During a Lok Sabha debate, Shri T. N. Prathapan highlighted that patented medicines are sold at high prices, leading to exploitation of common people. He demanded that patent medicines be brought under Price Regulatory Authority or production should be allowed under compulsory license.
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.
Oramed Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Oramed Ltd. challenged a decision dated February 25, 2019, made under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority erred by proceeding on Section 3(d) instead of Section 3(e), and that the order was based on conjectures rather than conclusive findings. The court found infirmities in the impugned order.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Enzalutamide', citing lack of inventive steps. The petitioner further argued that the rejection was vitiated because the Controller failed to address or refer to crucial expert affidavits and scientific documents presented during the proceedings.
Eisai Co. Ltd. v.Satish Reddy
The plaintiffs, holding exclusive rights to Indian Patent No. 215528 for Lorcaserin, filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against the defendants who were planning to commercialize an infringing drug (LHH). The court found that there was a prima facie case of infringement in favor of the plaintiff.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
This judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, commonly known as the Bolar provision. The court examined whether patented products could be exported for clinical trials and regulatory submissions outside India without constituting patent infringement. The bench affirmed that sale or use under Section 107A is legal both domestically and abroad, provided the end purpose is reasonably related to research and development for regulatory compliance. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that disputes regarding the legitimate scope of this exemption should be adjudicated in civil suits rather than public law proceedings like writ petitions.
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S v.La Renon Healthcare Private Limited & Anr
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S filed a suit for infringement against La Renon Healthcare Private Limited and others regarding Patent No. 291100 ('RAPIFER'). The court granted permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 based purely on the defendant's binding statement, despite disputes over the plaint's merits. Similarly, the suit against Defendant No. 2 (Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.) was disposed of by binding them to their reply stating they were not infringing.
Teva Pharmaceuticals International v.Orbicular Pharmaceutical Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Teva Pharmaceuticals International filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner in Telangana High Court. The purpose was to collect documents and testimony from Orbicular Pharmaceutical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which was involved in a U.S. patent infringement case concerning Teva's anti-cancer drug, Bendeka®. The court granted the petition, directing the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, to conduct the proceedings under strict confidentiality terms.
Celgene Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Celgene Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8064/CHENB/2010) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that their invention—a dissolvable tablet formulation for cancer treatment—had novelty and inventive step over prior art, which consisted of enteric-coated tablets. The High Court found the controller's rejection faulty because it failed to consider the technical advancements presented by the appellant.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Venkata Reddy Alla
The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered Patent No. 209816, along with damages and other reliefs. The case was successfully mediated, leading to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. challenged procedural orders issued by the Controller General of Patents concerning a post-grant opposition filed against their Indian Patent No. 255964. The petitioner argued that denying them the opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses relied upon by the opponent violated principles of natural justice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding that the denial vitiated the proceedings and set aside the impugned orders.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking to defer or modify the appointment of a scientific expert to determine if the defendant's product, VALSAC, falls within the scope of Claim 1 of their patent (IN 229051). The court accepted the suggestion to appoint an expert from the Roll of Experts and framed a specific question for the appointed Expert Advisor.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh And Anr v.Symed Laboratories Ltd
The execution petition sought to enforce a consent decree from 2015, which restricted Symed Laboratories Ltd from commercially exploiting RIVAROXABAN. The plaintiff later learned that the defendant had obtained a commercial license and made exports. The court addressed jurisdictional objections before disposing of the petition.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.Union of India and others
Panacea Biotec Ltd. challenged the grant of its vaccine patent (IN'351) after the Opposition Board provided a recommendation that the Petitioner deemed 'flawed.' The Petitioner sought the High Court to reconstitute a new Opposition Board. The court rejected the petition, holding that the Act provides a self-contained mechanism for expert adjudication and judicial interference is unwarranted at this stage.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Nk Singh & Ors.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. sought an ad interim injunction against Nk Singh & Ors., alleging that the defendants were openly offering for sale a patented anti-hyperglycemic agent, REMOGLIFLOZIN ETABONATE. The court found that the plaintiff held exclusive rights and granted the injunction.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing its patented pharmaceutical composition, Valsartan + Sacubitril (Patent No. 229051). The dispute centered on whether Natco's product, VALSAC, was identical to the claimed invention. The court found prima facie merit in Novartis' contentions and appointed an independent Expert Advisor to determine infringement.
DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V & Anr. v.Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co (WQD) & Anr.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a process patent related to 'Amoxicillin Trihydrate'. The application before the court sought contempt proceedings due to alleged violation of an earlier interim order. The court found that the defendant's manufacturing process was virtually identical to the patented process, thus violating the interim restraint.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Mn Reddy & Anr
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug RIVAROXABAN (Patent No. 211300). The parties reached a settlement, leading to a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Rshyamala Ranganathan
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringement of their registered patent. The defendants stated they have never manufactured the products in question and agreed to the decree.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee
Bayer sought execution of a prior judgment restraining Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee and others from commercially launching 'RIVAROXABAN' during the lifetime of Patent IN 211300. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendants, including representatives of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, that they would not make commercial use of the product until the patent expires.
Biogen International Gmbh v.Jayesh Shah
The court passed an order disposing of several applications filed by both parties. The existing interim injunction was confirmed, and the defendant was permitted to sell their existing stock of 'DYFIRA' under specific conditions. This permission required the defendant to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.30 lacs to secure potential damages.
Sugen Inc. v.K.V. Prakash & Ors
The petitioner (Decree Holder) filed an application alleging that the respondents (Judgment Debtors), including K.V. Prakash, SP Accure Labs Pvt. Ltd., and Accure Labs Pvt. Ltd., were violating a permanent injunction decree by making, selling, or dealing in products infringing Indian Patent No. 209251. The petitioner specifically cited the marketing of medicines named SUNIT 50 and SPUNIT 25. The court directed JD No.1 to appear in person for further inquiry.
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.