Pharma — India Patent Cases
967 decisions indexed
Page 31 of 33 · 967 total
Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Lim.
Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Lim., alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Vega Asia' and associated copyrights in packaging designs. The defendant countered by asserting prior use, holding its own registrations (including the mark 'Vegah'), and crucially, arguing that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts regarding pending rectification applications and previous complaints. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application, finding that the plaintiff's conduct disentitled them from relief at this stage.
Indian Network for People living with HIV/AIDS v.Union of India
The petitioners, representing people living with HIV/AIDS, challenged the grant of Patent No.207232 by F.Hoffmann-La Roche AG for Valganciclovir derivative. They argued that since India adopted a product patent regime in 2005, any product invention disclosed prior to 1995 should be considered public domain and lack novelty. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the patent grant.
M/s.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited v.M/s.United Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
Orchid Chemicals filed appeals challenging the dismissal of its application for interim injunction against United Biotech, which was marketing a product under the mark 'FORZID' in Tamil Nadu. The court examined claims of trade mark infringement and passing off regarding the pharmaceutical preparation ORZID.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v.Cipla Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Sun Pharmaceuticals against Cipla regarding the use of the trademark THEOBID-D. Despite arguments from the defendant citing statutory requirements for registered assignment, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to protection based on prima facie rights and the potential irreparable injury caused by continued infringement in the pharmaceutical sector. The order restrained the defendant's associates from using the disputed mark during the pendency of the suit.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal concerning patentability issues involving crystal modification of an N-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative. The core issue was the absence of a qualified Technical Member in the Intellectual Property Appellant Board (IPAB).
Glaxo Smith Kline Plc v.Controller Of Patents & Designs
The dispute concerned the application for Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) under the Patents Act. After the relevant chapter was repealed by amendment in 2005, the appellants challenged the High Court's decision which had allowed appeals based on the argument that no further consideration of EMR was possible post-amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that due to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the vested right to challenge earlier orders remained alive.
Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. And Anr.
Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. for infringing its registered design of a D Shape Tablet. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing tablets with identical shape and configuration, thereby exploiting the unique aesthetic innovation protected under the Designs Act, 2000. After considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, the court granted temporary injunctions to protect the registered design.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Limited
This case involves F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. seeking an ad-interim injunction against Cipla Limited for allegedly infringing its patent on the cancer drug Erlotinib (marketed as Tarceva). The court examined the balance between protecting the innovator's intellectual property rights and ensuring public access to a life-saving generic medication. Ultimately, the court dismissed the request for an immediate injunction, prioritizing the public interest in patient access.
Merck Kgaa v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Merck Kgaa appealed an order from the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its trade mark 'CANDISTAT'. The core issue revolved around whether the appellant could be granted sufficient time to file necessary evidence in support of its opposition, despite procedural delays. The IPAB set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that opportunity must be granted to the applicant.
Amit R. Trivedi Trading As Active Health v.Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks And ...
The appellant, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, appealed against the Assistant Registrar's refusal to register the trade mark SEREN. The appeal argued that since the product was a prescription drug, there was no likelihood of confusion. However, the IPAB found the marks (SEREN and SERENE) to be patently identical phonetically and structurally, concluding that the likelihood of deception was imminent.
T.T.K.Pharma Limited v.Robapharam Ag
The appeal was filed by T.T.K.Pharma Limited against an order refusing to stay a suit filed by Robapharam Ag regarding the registered Trade Mark "OSSOPAN". The appellant argued that a rectification application under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, had been filed. However, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the request for a stay.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v.Pe-Mm Sp. Zo.O And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. in its suit against Pe-Mm Sp. Zo.O regarding trademark infringement via domain name squatting. The court found that the defendant's registration of 'www.ranbaxy.eu' was unauthorized and deceptively similar to Ranbaxy's registered global trademark, 'RANBAXY'. Citing established principles, the judgment affirmed that a proprietor has a legitimate interest in protecting its brand identity across digital domains.
Apex Laboratories Private Limited v.K.Prasad Reddy
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Apex Laboratories Private Limited seeking rectification and cancellation of a trademark registration granted to K.Prasad Reddy. The court found that the respondent's registration for 'ZINCOVIT' under Class 29 was mischievous and fraudulent, as the petitioner had been a prior user and proprietor of the mark since 1988/1990. Given the clear evidence of malafide intent and copying, the High Court ruled in favor of Apex Laboratories.
Novartis AG v.Union of India
Novartis AG challenged the constitutional validity and TRIPS compliance of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2005), arguing it was vague and arbitrary. The petitioner sought a declaration that the section was unconstitutional and requested permission to allow a specific patent application.
Fdc Limited (and others) v.Sanjeev Khandelwal Prem Niwas (and others)
This Civil Revision Petition challenged the grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction by the trial court against several pharmaceutical companies. The petitioners argued that the injunction was arbitrary, as they were based outside the jurisdiction and no substantive evidence of infringement had been considered. The Madras High Court suspended the interim order, emphasizing that such a drastic relief requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence from both sides before judicial scrutiny.
Bilcare Limited v.The Supreme Industries Ltd.
Bilcare Limited filed suits against The Supreme Industries Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented metallized PVC film used in pharmaceutical packaging. Bilcare sought a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from manufacturing or selling the infringing product. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Bilcare, upholding the trial court's decision. The court found that the essential conditions for granting an injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—leaned in favor of the respondents.
Bilcare Limited v.M/s.Associated Capsules Private Limited
Bilcare Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s.Associated Capsules Private Limited for infringing its registered patent (No. 197823) related to 'metallized' film used in pharmaceutical packaging. The court examined the validity and infringement claims, ultimately finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Novartis Ag. v.Cipla Ltd.
Cipla Ltd. opposed Novartis AG's patent application for a new crystal form of imatinib mesylate. The IPAB found that the subject matter was merely a new form of a known substance without significant enhancement in efficacy, thus failing Section 3(d). Furthermore, the court disqualified the application due to improper claiming of Swiss priority.
Dr. Anji Reddy (Appellant) v.Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft against a single judge's decision, restoring the original trademark registration order. The dispute centered on whether the mark 'Novigan,' applied for in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations), was deceptively similar to the existing registered mark 'Novalgin.' The court found that despite structural similarities, the marks were phonetically and visually distinct enough not to cause confusion among the general public. This ruling emphasizes deference to technical authorities like the Assistant Registrar when assessing trademark similarity.
Dr. Anji Reddy v.Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
This appeal concerned the registrability of the pharmaceutical trademark 'Novigan' against an objection raised by the owner of 'Novalgin'. The single judge had ruled that the marks were deceptively similar, but the Madras High Court overturned this decision. The court found no significant phonetic or visual similarity between the two marks, noting that common prefixes like 'Nova' are widely used in the pharmaceutical sector. Consequently, the original order allowing registration was restored.
Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. v.Orchid Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Orchid Chemicals, vacating an earlier interim injunction that had restrained them from using the trademark 'MEROMER'. The court found that while the plaintiff (Astrazeneca) claimed infringement based on deceptive similarity with 'MERONEM', the balance of convenience favored the defendant. Given that the defendant offered a cheaper alternative for the same essential drug, and considering other companies also used similar prefixes in the market, the court allowed the use of 'MEROMER' but mandated regular submission of sales accounts to safeguard the plaintiff's interests.
Glaxo Smith Kline Plc And Ors. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And ...
Glaxo Smith Kline challenged the rejection of their application for exclusive marketing rights. The core dispute revolved around whether the Controller was legally obligated to consider the examiner's report when making the final decision under Section 24A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision based on the law existing at the time of the initial rejection.
Novartis Ag v.Hetero Drugs Limited
Novartis AG applied for a patent on the ß-crystal form of imatinib mesylate. Hetero Drugs Limited opposed the application, arguing that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not meet the enhanced efficacy criteria under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Tribunal agreed with the opposition, finding that the subject matter was a new form of a known substance without significant improvement in efficacy.
Novartis Ag v.Cancer Patients Aid Association.
The opposition was filed against 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 meet the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d), leading to the refusal of the patent application.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Ltd.
Natco Pharma Ltd. opposed the patent application filed by Novartis Ag for a specific crystalline form of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not meet the criteria for enhanced efficacy under Section 3(d). Consequently, the application was refused.
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.
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.