Pharma — India Patent Cases
967 decisions indexed
Page 21 of 33 · 967 total
Makind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Makind Pharma Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application for "DON'T WORRY" in Class 3. The court held that, given the Appellant's existing registrations of the mark across various classes, the refusal based solely on lack of distinctiveness was unwarranted. The application was permitted to proceed for advertisement before acceptance, provided it is associated with the registered trademark 'MANKIND'S DON'T WORRY', and no exclusive rights are granted in the words 'DON'T' or 'WORRY' alone.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 233161, which covers 'ELTROMBOPAG OLAMINE / REVOLADE'. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals indicating that the defendant was included in a list for procuring the patented preparation.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 283133, which covers PYRROLOPYRIMIDINE (RIBOCICLIB). The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum indicating the government's intent to procure RIBOCICLIB TAB/CAP, and Novartis argued this posed a threat to its patent rights.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories for alleged infringement of its patent (No. 237430) covering Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases, specifically related to the drug NILOTINIB/TASIGNA. The dispute arose from an Office Memorandum indicating that the Defendant was being considered by the Department of Pharmaceuticals for manufacturing this patented preparation.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, listing the defendant for procurement of 'SACUBITRIL + VALSARTAN'.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Mackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought a permanent injunction against Mackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'OFLOMAC.' The court noted that the matter was previously stayed pending an IPAB order which ultimately favored the Plaintiff by ordering the removal of the Defendant's mark due to deceptive similarity with 'OFRAMAX.' However, given conflicting statements made by counsel before the Bombay High Court regarding the continuation of the suit, the Delhi High Court decided not to rule on the procedural dispute and instead issued notice for the Defendant to file a reply.
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The dispute involved Astra Zeneca alleging infringement of its formulation patents (IN 247984 and IN 272674) by Torrent Pharmaceuticals' product, Ticagrelor. The parties amicably resolved their differences before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Metrochem Api Pvt. Ltd
The parties amicably resolved their dispute concerning Patent Infringement (CS(COMM) No. 406 of 2019). The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, who hold exclusive rights over products containing Sitagliptin.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing their patent on Lactam-Containing Compounds (Apixaban API). The Defendant submitted an affidavit stating that it had not supplied commercial quantities and agreed to manufacture/sell the drug solely under Section 107A(a) of the Patents Act, leading the Court to pass an interim restraint order.
Lilly Icos Llc v.Vivek Pharmachem And Anr.
The dispute between Lilly Icos Llc and Vivek Pharmachem was amicably resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a settlement agreement where they mutually acknowledged each other's respective trademarks, 'CIALIS' and 'ZYDALIS'. Crucially, Defendant No. 2 agreed not to use any mark with the suffix 'ALIS' for erectile dysfunction drugs, while Plaintiff agreed to withdraw an opposition against ZYDALIS. The court subsequently decreed the suit against Defendant No. 2 based on these settlement terms.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr
In a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. successfully reached a comprehensive settlement with M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr before the Delhi High Court. The parties jointly filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, leading to a decree that formally acknowledged Sun Pharma's rights in 'SUN' and 'SUN PHARMA'. Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendants agreed to cease using the infringing mark, destroy related materials, and withdraw their trademark application.
Saga Lifesciences Limited v.Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the brand 'ULTRAMOL', the Delhi High Court recognized Saga Lifesciences Limited as the prior adopter and user of the mark for pharmaceutical preparations. Despite initial procedural applications being disposed of, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The commissioner is tasked with inventorying products bearing both 'ULTRAMOL' and 'ARISTO ULTRAMOL', and critically, examining the sales accounts of the defendant to assess the scope of alleged infringement.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Co. KG v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs sought an injunction and damages against the defendant for infringing their patent rights related to Linagliptin. The defendant challenged the plaint's validity, arguing that the suit was barred by law under Section 53(4) of the Patents Act or not properly filed. The court dismissed the application seeking rejection of the plaint.
Sanofi India Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Limited
Sanofi India Limited filed a suit against Ridley Life Science Private Limited alleging continuous violation of an earlier injunction order, specifically regarding the sale of products under the marks 'CONCIFLAM' and 'CORIFLAM'. The Plaintiff claimed that these infringing products were being sold despite the May 2021 restraint on using marks similar to its registered trademark 'COMBIFLAM'. The court noted the defendant's history of alleged habitual infringement in pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to submit detailed sales figures and imposed a significant deposit amount due to the persistent violations.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Mr. Mahaveer Chand
The contempt petition was filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp alleging non-compliance with a previous court order and settlement agreement concerning patent IN' 816. The petitioner claimed that the respondent continued dealing in products covered by the patent, specifically generic versions of Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate. The Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit with an unconditional apology.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addressed an application seeking dismissal of a patent revocation petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The court examined Section 64 of the Patents Act and the concept of a 'person interested'.
Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks
Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.201817048074), which covered a crystalline form of compound c28. The rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, as the drug was considered known and lacked enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Daewoong sought to introduce additional data demonstrating superior properties like stability and dissolution rates. The High Court accepted the application for additional documents but framed two critical issues: whether this post-filing data is admissible, and if the crystalline form ultimately meets Section 3(d) requirements.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 1, 2021, passed by the Assistant Controller. The said order rejected the patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone' on grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act.
Pfizer Products Inc v.D Rawal
The contempt petition was filed by Pfizer Products Inc alleging non-compliance with a previous court order. The respondent submitted an affidavit stating that they had applied to the DCGI for permission to manufacture and market the new drug, Tofacitinib, under New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules, 2019. They undertook not to commercialize the product until the patent expiry date.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Ms Glowsun India Labs Private Limited
Bristol-Myers Squibb filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ms Glowsun India Labs for infringing its patent (IN 247381) related to the drug APIXABAN. The parties subsequently resolved their dispute amicably through mediation, leading to a final settlement.
Ferring B.V. v.Precise Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Ferring B.V. filed a suit alleging infringement of Patent IN 387567, which covered RTS Carbetocin for preventing post-partum haemorrhage. The Plaintiffs argued that manufacturing occurred while the patent was validly granted in February 2022. However, the court found merit in the Defendants' contention that since the grant order was subsequently set aside by a writ petition, there was no valid patent to sustain the infringement suit.
Novartis AG v.Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd and Metrochem Api Private Limited for infringing its patent (No. 233161) covering 'Eltrombopag Olamine', the API in Revolade. The court found that both defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and admitted they had not manufactured or commercially sold the patented product, leading to a decree granting permanent injunction during the patent's term.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg v.Natco Pharma Limited
The judgment addresses multiple applications within a commercial suit concerning pharmaceutical patents. The court disposed of an application regarding electronic records and issued directions on several other pending matters, including contempt proceedings related to the sale of Afatinib tablets.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Controller Of Patents And Design
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617023236) for a solid preparation containing Tofogliflozin in monohydrate crystal form. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) because it was merely a new use/form of a known drug without enhanced efficacy.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The court addressed two matters concerning the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301, which covers the compound Linagliptin. The proceedings involved procedural steps such as treating a plaint as a petition and returning counter statements under objections.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. Vifor contended that Hetero was preparing to launch a generic version under the brand HETROFER, which infringed upon their exclusive patent rights for treating iron deficiency anaemia. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience presented by the Plaintiffs.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The case involves Novartis AG seeking a permanent injunction against MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its patent related to Eltrombopag Olamine, the active ingredient in its drug Revolade.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co. Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The suit was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group challenging an impugned order from the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja), Section 3(d), and Section 10 of the Patents Act, 1970. The plaintiff argued that the objections under Section 10 were never raised during examination and that deleted claims were improperly used for rejection.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No.4380/DELNP/2013 by the Controller of Patents, which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant challenged the basis and citation of the prior art documents used against them.
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Azista Industries Private Limited & Ors
Pfizer Inc and others filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts against Azista Industries Private Limited and others for infringing their patented drug 'Palbociclib'. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim ex parte injunction.
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.