Pharma — India Patent Cases
971 decisions indexed
Page 28 of 33 · 971 total
Krishnamachari Ramu v.Srinivasa Raja
The petitioners challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's order that revoked their patents (No. 193899 and 200285) concerning a novel method for preparing low glycemic sweets using Levulose/Fructose. The High Court found that the dispute required intricate scientific proof regarding the elimination of browning reactions, leading it to set aside the revocation order and remand the matter back to the IPAB.
Reliance Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Reliance Medipharma
The Gujarat High Court addressed appeals concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand name 'RELIANCE' in the pharmaceutical sector. While the court confirmed the lower court's decision refusing a broad injunction against the defendants using the name 'Reliance,' it partially allowed the appeal by specifically restraining the use of the derivative mark, 'Reliance Rx M,' for pharmaceutical products. This ruling highlights the nuanced approach courts take when balancing established trademark rights with specific usage limitations.
Vior(International) Ltd v.Maxycon Health Care Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunctions, damages, and rendition of accounts against the defendants for infringing an Indian patent (IN No. 221536) related to Ferric Carboxymaltose, as well as for copyright infringement and dilution of their brand image. The court found that the defendants were engaging in infringing activities despite being treated ex parte and violating interim orders.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. v.Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., finding that the defendant, Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy, had infringed upon its registered trademarks ('Apollo', 'Apollo Pharmacy') and committed passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks or services. Furthermore, the plaintiff was awarded costs and directed the defendant to surrender all infringing materials and render accounts of profits.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Lupin Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Lupin Ltd and others. The court found that the defendant's trade mark, TRI-VOBIT, was structurally and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, TRIVOLIB. Despite arguments regarding prior use of 'VOBIT,' the court ruled that the full marks must be compared, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off.
Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to restore its Indian Patent Application (No. 3584/DELNP/2015) for examination, which had been treated as abandoned due to failure to file the request within the prescribed time limit. The court examined the mandatory nature of the statutory deadlines and ruled against the petitioner's plea for restoration.
Ansari Bilal Ahmadlal Mohd. (Appellant) v.Shafeeque Ahmed Mohammad Sayeed (Respondent-Plaintiff)
The Bombay High Court dismissed the defendant's commercial appeal, upholding the original plaintiff's claim of passing off. The court found that a strong prima-facie case existed for passing off, despite differences in calligraphy and design elements. Considering the target audience—laborers with imperfect recollection—the court ruled that the defendant's use of 'SUKOON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, thereby protecting the plaintiff's proprietary rights.
M/S.Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd against Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors, finding that the defendants infringed upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The court held that the defendant's use of similar trademarks and packaging for liver tonic preparations amounted to both copyright infringement and passing off. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing their infringing activities.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Vinod Jadhav
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp sought confirmation of an existing ex parte ad interim injunction against Vinod Jadhav and others, alleging that they were infringing on their registered patent for the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs established that they held a valid patent (No. 209816) and had previously secured a permanent injunction in a related suit. The court found that the plaintiffs clearly made out a prima facie case and confirmed the interim order, noting the defendants' attempts to delay the matter.
Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Raj Kumar Prasad & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by the plaintiff seeking a stay of infringement proceedings while rectification/cancellation proceedings against the defendant's trademark were pending. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act requires the issue of invalidity to be formally raised and framed in the suit before a stay can be granted. Since the plaintiff failed to press this issue during the framing of issues, the application was dismissed, emphasizing procedural adherence over subsequent actions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr.
Vifor (International) Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr. for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers a novel water soluble iron carbohydrate complex used for intravenous treatment of iron deficiency. The court found that the defendants were violating the plaintiff's registered patent rights.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Mr. Munish Thakur
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Munish Thakur for infringing Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin. The court found that the defendant's product, GLIPSIT-M1, contained Sitagliptin and thus infringed the patent.
Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co v.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The appeal challenged a decree of permanent injunction granted in favor of Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co. The core dispute involved alleged infringement of Patent No. 247301 concerning the 'Process for Preparing Amoxicilin Trihydrate'. The court set aside the previous order, recognizing that questions regarding territorial jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction against foreign manufacturing needed further examination.
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals v.Union Of India
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals challenged an order passed by the Controller of Patents, arguing that the authority failed to consider superior data regarding their improved product version. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the impugned order was statutorily appealable, the petitioner must utilize the available statutory remedy.
Modi- Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to de-register the trademark 'FECONTIN' due to alleged non-use. The court found that the IPAB overlooked a crucial fact: 'FECONTIN' was registered as an associated mark of 'FECONTIN F'. Citing Section 55(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court held that the use of an associated trade mark can be accepted as equivalent to the use of the primary mark. Consequently, the court set aside the IPAB's order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
Cipla Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr
Cipla Limited appealed an injunction granted against it by the Delhi High Court, which restrained Cipla from using or manufacturing products containing INDACATEROL. The dispute centered on Novartis Ag & Anr's patent (No. 222346) for the drug INDACATEROL, marketed as ONBREZ. While Cipla argued that the respondents did not manufacture the drug in India and thus were not working the patent locally, the court upheld the injunction.
Bayer Corporation v.Union of India
The dispute centered on whether Natco Pharma Limited (Natco) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. could export products covered by compulsory licenses, specifically SORAFENAT/SORAFENIB, for regulatory development purposes outside India. Bayer challenged these exports, arguing they infringed the patent or violated the terms of the Compulsory Licence. The court ultimately held that non-patentee companies cannot be deprived of exercising rights under Section 107A merely because a compulsory license was granted.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors
Bayer challenged Natco's (and Alembic's) exports of SORAFENIB/SORAFENAT, which were covered by a Compulsory Licence, arguing these exports infringed the patent. The core legal question was whether Section 107A allowed for such exports for regulatory purposes.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Lupin Ltd And Anr
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals against the refusal of interim relief. The dispute centered on alleged infringement and passing off concerning the medicinal preparation DEXORANGE, whose packaging and trade mark were copied by the respondents (Lupin Ltd And Anr). Despite strong claims regarding identical artistic work and deceptive similarity, the court found no immediate case for injunction after an 11-year delay in seeking relief. However, the court directed that the original suit be expedited, keeping all core issues of infringement and passing off open for future adjudication.
M/s. Eris Life Science Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s. Micro Labs Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of staying a trademark infringement suit when a rectification application concerning the registered mark is pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The court clarified that the right to file for trademark rectification is a statutory right and cannot be curtailed by requiring prior leave or prima facie satisfaction from the civil court. Given the similarity between the marks and the pendency of the IPAB proceedings, the suit was stayed.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.P.Ramu Trading as Skylane Pharmaceuticals
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Cadila Healthcare Limited, a major pharmaceutical player, finding that the defendant's use of the trademark PANTOSKY constituted infringement against Cadila's registered mark PANTODAC. The court held that PANTOSKY was deceptively similar to PANTODAC, leading to a decree for permanent injunction and damages. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known pharmaceutical trademarks in the Indian market.
Apex Laboratories Limited v.India Pharmaceuticals
Apex Laboratories Limited filed suit against India Pharmaceuticals alleging infringement and passing off concerning its 'ZINCOVIT' product label. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's 'BICAL' label was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's registered artistic work. The court found that the labels were absolutely identical, applying the time-honored test for comparison. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of Apex Laboratories Limited, granting permanent injunction and damages.
Novartis Ag v.Atoz Pharmaceuticals Pvtltd
Novartis Ag filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Atoz Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd and Zota Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd for alleged infringement of its Indian Patent No. 212815 concerning Vildagliptin API/formulations. The court noted that the defendant had cancelled the product 'VILDAPIN-50' as requested by them, leading to the plaintiffs withdrawing most reliefs.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Sanjay Jain
The plaintiffs, Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and its subsidiary, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of their patent (IN 203937) covering the anti-cancer molecule DASATINIB. The defendants were proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance in court.
M/s.Advaith Bio Remedies v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
M/s. Advaith Bio Remedies approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention regarding the undue delay in processing their trademark application for 'BIO CARE' (Application No. 3040849). The petitioner, which manufactures Ayurvedic medicines, argued that the prolonged wait was negatively impacting their business operations. The court intervened by issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to prioritize and dispose of the pending application as expeditiously as possible.
Teva Api India Pvt. Ltd. v.Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp
The respondents sued the appellants alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 209816 for Sitagliptin. The appellants challenged the interim injunction, claiming their manufacturing and exports were solely for Research & Development (R&D) and obtaining global regulatory approvals before the patent expiry in 2022. The court dismissed the appeal but directed the parties to complete pleadings.
Shomenath Roy Chowdhury v.Eskag Pharma Private Limited
This case involves a dispute over a patent held by Shomenath Roy Chowdhury for a therapeutic composition used in wound healing, marketed as 'Dresin'. The petitioner alleged that Eskag Pharma Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a similar product under the name 'Sufrate TP', constituting infringement. While the petitioner sought an immediate injunction, the court recognized the need to hear the defense, which primarily argued that the ingredients were well-known in the medicinal field. Consequently, instead of granting an outright ban, the Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the respondent's stock.
Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
Roche Products, the originator of the biological drug Trastuzumab (marketed globally under HERCEPTIN®), filed a suit seeking injunction against competitors launching purported biosimilars like CANMAb and HERTRAZ. The plaintiffs contended that these drugs were being misrepresented as 'Trastuzumab' or similar to HERCEPTIN®, without following proper regulatory guidelines for biologics. The court issued an interim order, restraining the defendants from making misleading claims and using proprietary data until the final decision on bio-similarity is reached.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Psycoremedies Ltd.
The civil suit was filed regarding the alleged infringement of a trademark. The parties subsequently entered into a Memo of Compromise, resolving all disputes between them.
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.