Pharma — India Patent Cases
742 decisions indexed
Page 25 of 25 · 742 total
Novartis Ag v.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., on behalf of Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, opposed Novartis AG's patent application for a specific crystalline form (ß-crystal) of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not demonstrate enhanced efficacy as required under Section 3(d), leading to the refusal of the patent.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd.
Cipla Ltd. opposed Novartis Ag's patent application for the ß-crystal form of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was merely a new form of a known substance and did not demonstrate significant enhancement in efficacy as required under Section 3(d). Furthermore, the application was disqualified for wrongly claiming priority.
Wockhardt Limited v.Hetero Drugs Limited
Wockhardt Limited, holding a Process Patent and Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) for Nadifloxacin 1% Cream, filed suit against Hetero Drugs Limited and others alleging patent infringement. The lower court had previously vacated an interim injunction granted to Wockhardt. This Division Bench set aside the single judge's order, finding that Wockhardt was entitled to an injunction due to a prima facie case and the risk of irreparable injury.
Wockhardt Ltd. v.Hetero Drugs Ltd. And Ors.
Wockhardt Ltd. filed Original Applications seeking an ad-interim injunction against Hetero Drugs Ltd. and others for infringing Patent No. 188847, Patent No. 188347, and EMR No. EMR/1/03 related to Nadifloxacin 1% cream (NADIDERM). The Madras High Court ultimately vacated the interim injunction, finding that the respondent had a valid manufacturing license based on US and Japan patents, and the challenge to this license was still pending before the Delhi High Court.
Pfizer Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Central Excise
The appellant (a medicament manufacturer) entered into an agreement with Pfizer Inc. to receive technical know-how and use patented technology for manufacturing pharmaceuticals. The Department levied Service Tax on payments made to Pfizer, classifying it as 'engineering consultancy'. The Tribunal ruled that since the transaction was a license/transfer of intellectual property know-how, not professional engineering advice, the levy of Service Tax was unwarranted.
N/A v.N/A
The Lok Sabha debated the Patents (Amendment) Bill, 2005, which sought to introduce product patents. Opposition members strongly argued that this change would lead to exorbitant drug prices, making essential medicines inaccessible to the common man, thereby violating the fundamental right to health under Article 21. Despite these concerns, the Minister of Commerce and Industry successfully moved the motion, and the Bill was ultimately passed by the House.
The Government of India v.Concerned Citizens/Pharmaceutical Industry Stakeholders
The debate centered on the introduction of a Bill to further amend the Patents Act, 1970. Opponents argued that the amendment would compromise India's strong generic drug industry and restrict public access to affordable life-saving medicines. The Speaker ultimately allowed the motion for introducing the Bill to be adopted.
Novartis Ag And Anr. v.Mehar Pharma And Anr.
Novartis sought an interim injunction restraining Mehar Pharma from manufacturing, selling, or exporting its anti-cancer drug 'VEENAT', which was alleged to infringe Novartis's Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for 'B-crystalline form of imatinib Mesyiate salt'. The court ultimately denied the temporary injunction, citing concerns about disrupting the supply of this life-saving drug in India.
Intas Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v.Novaritis A.G., Schwarzwaldallee,
The dispute concerned the validity of an Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) granted to Novaritis for the anti-cancer drug, Beta-Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate. Intas Laboratories challenged this EMR, arguing it created a monopoly and harmed public interest due to high pricing. The Madras High Court confirmed the interim injunction but mandated that the plaintiffs supply the drug freely to eligible patients.
Novartis Ag v.Adarsh Pharma And Anr.
The plaintiff, Novartis Ag, sought to confirm an ex parte injunction granted under Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for its product, Beta Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate. The defendant challenged this injunction, arguing that no patent was ever filed in India and the EMR was vague. The court ultimately confirmed the injunction, finding prima facie materials favored the plaintiffs.
Exphar SA v.Eupharma Laboratories Ltd.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademark 'Maloxine' and its distinctive packaging design. The appellants, claiming ownership of the copyright and trademark, sued the respondents for passing off and copyright infringement related to the malaria medicine. A key legal challenge was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The court ultimately ruled that the receipt of a cease and desist notice within the jurisdiction was sufficient to invoke the court's authority.
Exphar Sa And Ors. v.Bharat Shah And Anr.
This appeal involved disputes concerning the trademark MALOXINE and associated copyright in its carton design. The plaintiffs, a Belgian-based company, sought permanent prohibitory injunctions against the defendants for passing off and infringement. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately ruled that it lacked the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit or grant an interim injunction, as the plaintiff did not reside or carry on business within India.
Ipca Laboratories Ltd. v.Savita Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendant from infringing its copyright in cartons/labels and passing off goods under the trade mark 'APPETONE'. The dispute centered on whether the Plaintiff, as a prior user, was entitled to relief despite the Defendant manufacturing similar products. The court dismissed the Notice of Motion.
Richardson Vicks Inc. v.Raj Remedies
The plaintiffs (Richardson Vicks Inc.) sought an injunction against the defendants (Raj Remedies) alleging infringement of their registered trade mark 'VICKS' and copyright in the artistic label, by using the deceptively similar marks/get-up like 'VIKAS'. The Gujarat High Court upheld the City Civil Court's interim order, finding that a prima facie case for deceptive similarity existed.
Brawn Laboratories Ltd. v.Rhone Poulenc Rorer S.A.
The petitioner sought arbitration and an interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to restrain the respondents from marketing products like CLEXANE. The dispute centered on the termination of an exclusive license agreement and alleged breach of negative covenants.
Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. And Another
The plaintiffs, owners of the trademark 'Septran' and copyrights in its carton design, sued the defendants for infringing these rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively imitating their product ('Simptran Tablets') using a similar carton and mark since 1993.
N.V. Philips Gloeilempenfabrieken Bindhhoven, Holland v.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (No. 1)
This case involved a dispute over whether payments received by N.V. Philips from an Indian company for providing technical knowledge regarding Vitamin D manufacturing constituted a technical assistance fee or royalty. The core issue revolved around the nature of the agreement, which granted exclusive use of confidential processes and information to the Indian company under strict secrecy terms. The court ultimately held that because the process was treated as an exclusive secret property by Philips, the payment bore the character of royalty.
Farbewerke Hoechst v.Unichem Laboratories And Ors.
Farbewerke Hoechst sued Unichem Laboratories for infringing Patent No. 58716, which covered the manufacture of sulphonyl-ureas like Tolbutamide (marketed as Rastinon). The defendants claimed non-infringement and challenged the validity of the patent. The court found that the plaintiffs' patent was valid and granted an injunction against the defendants.
K.L. Chaturvedi v.State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Drugs Act, 1940, arguing that the amendment requiring mandatory disclosure of the true formula or ingredient list for his proprietary medicine 'Germs Killer' would expose his trade secret. The court upheld the amended provisions, finding them reasonable and necessary for public health and safety.
Symed Labs Limited v.Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited
Symed Labs Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited for manufacturing and selling Linezolid, allegedly infringing their patents IN 213062 and IN 213063. However, the plaintiff withdrew the suit, and the court dismissed it as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The case highlights the importance of patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry. The plaintiff's decision to withdraw the suit may indicate a settlement or a strategic decision to focus on other legal battles.
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Controller of Patents to reject the patent application of Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. The application was rejected on the grounds of lack of novelty and non-patentability. The court held that the applicant failed to establish the novelty of the invention and that the invention did not meet the requirements of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The court also observed that the applicant had not provided sufficient data to support its claims of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
Prof.D.Aravindakshan v.Union Of India
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Prof. D. Aravindakshan challenging the refusal of the Registrar of Companies to approve the name 'Agastya Bio-Tech Limited'. The court found that despite the petitioner's claims, the attempt to register a company with an identical name while disputes regarding the original entity ('Agastya Bio-pharm India Limited') were pending made the proposed name undesirable. This ruling underscores the strict application of corporate naming rules designed to prevent public confusion and deception.
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.