Pharma — India Patent Cases
742 decisions indexed
Page 23 of 25 · 742 total
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India And Others
Bayer Corporation appealed an order allowing Nacto Pharma Ltd. (NPL), a compulsory licensee, to export its product 'Sorafenat' outside India for clinical trials. Bayer alleged this violated the terms of the compulsory license granted under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court directed that instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the underlying writ petition be disposed of expeditiously by impleading relevant regulatory authorities.
Novartis AG v.Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging that Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited was infringing its Indian Patent No. 212815 related to Vildagliptin API and formulations. The dispute was resolved after the defendant submitted an affidavit undertaking to cease all infringing activities, leading the court to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Shilpa Medicare Limited v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company And Ors.
This appeal involved Shilpa Medicare Limited challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a patent infringement suit filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. The core dispute centered on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that Shilpa's manufacturing unit was located outside Delhi. Bristol-Myers argued that the threat of infringing products being sold or offered for sale in Delhi, through generic partners like Natco, established sufficient cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. The High Court upheld the original order, finding no infirmity with the jurisdictional ruling.
Novartis AG v.Union of India
Novartis AG challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which allowed a Miscellaneous Petition filed by Wockhardt Limited. Novartis argued that the IPAB exceeded its jurisdiction and violated procedural rules by permitting additional grounds and documents in the patent revocation case. The Madras High Court upheld the IPAB's decision, finding it within its powers to regulate procedure based on principles of natural justice.
Nacto Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Nacto Pharma Limited challenged the actions of a respondent authority regarding the grant of a patent to another party. The petitioner alleged that the authority proceeded with merit-based objections without first addressing preliminary objections concerning a breach of Patent Rule 55 (4).
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr.D. Shah
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Mr. D. Shah and others for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937. The patent covers DASATINIB, an anti-cancer molecule used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Given the defendants' admission of infringement and the risk of irreparable harm, the Delhi High Court allowed the injunction applications, maintaining the status quo during the trial.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr. J.D. Joshi
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937, which covers the anti-cancer drug DASATINIB. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants intended to launch generic products violating their exclusive patent rights. Given the prima facie evidence of infringement and the irreparable harm the plaintiff would suffer, the court granted an interim injunction to maintain the status quo during the trial.
The Delhi Network Of Positive People v.Union Of India
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the practice of pharmaceutical companies abusing Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that filing identical divisional patent applications was used to keep patents alive and obstruct access to affordable medicines, particularly ARVs for HIV/AIDS patients. While acknowledging the merit in the grievance regarding process abuse, the court ultimately held that it could not issue directions requiring the Executive to amend statutory rules or interfere with the domain of administrative procedure, instead directing the respondents to consider rule amendments as a representation.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for an ad interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals regarding the patented drug Sitagliptin. MSD alleged that Glenmark's products, marketed as Zita and Zitamet, infringed upon its patent (Indian Patent No. 209816), which covers a key molecule used to treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, granting an interim injunction in favor of MSD, thereby restraining Glenmark from further selling or distributing the infringing products while the main suit proceeds.
Gilead Pharmasset, Llc v.Union Of India & Anr
Gilead Pharmasset challenged an order passed by the Patent Office, arguing that it violated natural justice because the decision considered grounds and material from pre-grant oppositions (filed under Section 25) without giving the petitioner a hearing. The court found that the availability of this opposition material created a potential for bias, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Symed Labs Ltd. v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Symed Labs Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was manufacturing and selling Linezolid using processes that infringed upon Symed's registered patents (IN '062 and IN '063). The Plaintiff argued that its patented methods were more economical, safer, and commercially viable than the prior art processes. The court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing the infringing activities.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit against Cipla Ltd alleging infringement of its patented drug, INDACATEROL Maleate, used for treating COPD. Novartis sought a permanent injunction to restrain the use and sale of the infringing product. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim application, noting that while the defendant had not applied for compulsory licensing, the grounds under the Patents Act were relevant. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing or selling INDACATEROL Maleate until the final outcome of the suit.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors
The application sought permission to export 1 kg of API Sorafenib (Sorafenat), which was manufactured under a compulsory license granted to NPL. Bayer challenged this export, arguing it constituted a commercial transaction and violated the terms of the compulsory license. The Court ultimately held that the export for regulatory approval purposes falls within the exception provided by Section 107A.
Merck Serono S.A. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Merck Serono S.A. challenged the Controller of Patents & Design's decision to declare its patent application abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that it had actively pursued the application by responding to both the First and Second Examination Reports. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that active pursuit negates abandonment.
Symed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Sharon Bio-Medicine Ltd. And Ors.
Symed Laboratories filed a suit for permanent injunction against Defendants, alleging infringement of their patents (IN 213062 and IN 213063) related to novel processes for preparing Linezolid. Defendant No. 3 moved an application seeking amendment of its written statement, arguing that it was merely purchasing the product from the market and not manufacturing it using the patented process. The Court partly allowed the amendment.
Novartis Ag And Ors. v.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 212815, which covers the compound Vildagliptin for treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Plaintiffs claimed that despite no immediate launch by the Defendant, its listing of Vildagliptin as an API on its website posed a significant threat to their market share. Considering the potential infringement and the balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Ranbaxy from manufacturing or selling products containing Vildagliptin.
Bayer Corporation v.Union of India Through The Secretary; The Controller of Patents; Natco Pharma Limited
Bayer Corporation challenged the order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which upheld the Controller's decision to grant a Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited. The license was granted for Bayer's patented drug, Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar), used in treating various cancers.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries challenged an order that returned its patent infringement suit against Natco Pharma Limited, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The core dispute revolved around whether the process patent infringement claim was limited only to exports from Hyderabad or if it extended to the apprehension of marketing within Delhi. The court held that since the plaint pleaded an apprehension of sale/marketing in Delhi, the court possessed jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Teva filed suit alleging Natco infringed its process patent (IN.190759) by manufacturing and exporting glatiramer acetate under the brand 'Glatimer'. Natco challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing that the alleged infringement related to export outside India, not local sales.
Teijin Limited v.Union of India Through The Secretary, Department of Industry, Ministry of Industry and Commerce
Teijin Limited filed a writ petition seeking to quash orders that declared its Patent No. 207883 as ceased due to non-payment of renewal fees (annuities). The Petitioner argued that payments for various annuities, including the 3rd to 9th and 10th year, were made but incorrectly recorded by the Patent Office. The Court found in favor of the Petitioner, directing the restoration of the patent.
M/S Universal Pharma v.G M Bell Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Universal Pharma against a trial court's interim injunction. The dispute involved allegations of copyright infringement and passing off related to pharmaceutical products. The court found that since the main suit was yet to be decided, scrutinizing evidence at the interim stage would prejudice the trial. Consequently, the High Court vacated the existing injunction, favoring the defendant (Universal Pharma) for now.
M/s.La Renon Health Care Pvt. v.Union of India
M/s. La Renon Health Care Pvt. challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) dismissal of its application to revoke Indian Patent No. 224100, which covered compositions for augmenting kidney function. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the IPAB order and direct the Controller General of Patents to cancel the patent granted to Kibow Biotech Inc. The Madras High Court examined the matter under supervisory jurisdiction, focusing on procedural fairness rather than substituting its own technical findings.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.V.C. Bhutada
The suit was filed by Bristol Myers Squibb Company against V.C. Bhutada and others, seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of Indian Patent No. 203937 covering the API DASATINIB (marketed as SPRYCEL). The current application sought to return the plaint for presentation in a different court based on territorial jurisdiction.
F Hoffman La Rochee Ltd & Anr v.Cipla Ltd.
This appeal involved disputes between Roche and Cipla regarding Patent No. 196774, which covered a cancer treatment drug ('Polymer A'). While Cipla had raised counterclaims seeking revocation based on non-disclosure (Section 8), the Division Bench addressed whether to stay the IPAB proceedings pending the outcome of cross-appeals in the High Court.
Jagdale Industries Limited v.Halewood Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Jagdale Industries Limited appealed an order dismissing its application for leave to sue Halewood Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding alleged infringement of Patent No. 247946, which covers a fruit juice based electrolyte energy drink. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence or causal link showing that a part of the cause of action arose within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, alleging infringement of its patent on the molecule SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's product infringed their patented composition and brand names (JANUVIA/JANUMET). However, the court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead necessary circumstances regarding prior unsuccessful applications for related patents.
Novartis Ag v.Union Of India & Ors
This landmark Supreme Court judgment addressed the critical interplay between Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, and the definition of 'invention.' The case centered on Novartis's claim for a patent covering the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate (marketed as Glivec/Gleevec), a life-saving drug. The Court was tasked with balancing the need to encourage pharmaceutical research and development against India’s commitment to ensuring affordable access to essential medicines, particularly in developing nations.
Vittal Mallya Scientific Research Foundation v.Indus Biotech Private Limited
Vittal Mallya Scientific Research filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against Indus Biotech Private Limited for manufacturing and selling products (soluble double metal salt of HCA and anti obesity beverages) in violation of several process patents. The plaintiff subsequently moved to withdraw the suit as 'not pressed', which the court accepted, dismissing the case.
Sugen Inc. v.A. Rao & Anr.
The plaintiffs sued for injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No.209251, which covered the drug SUTENT. Although the Supreme Court initially set aside a revocation order, the Assistant Controller subsequently revoked the patent again. The court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the basis for the interim injunction disappeared, and the plaintiffs' application for continued relief was dismissed.
Cipla Ltd. v.Union Of India and Others
Cipla Ltd. challenged the grant of Patent No. 209251 by filing an application for revocation. The Controller subsequently revoked the patent based on the Opposition Board's recommendation. The Supreme Court set aside the Controller's order, finding that it violated the principle of natural justice because the parties were not provided with a copy of the Opposition Board's report.
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.