Pharma — India Patent Cases
1,090 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 37 · 1,090 total
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN 243301, held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Respondent No. 2), concerning the anti-diabetic drug LINAGLIPTIN. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds that it was filed after the patent expired and because invalidity had already been raised in an ongoing infringement suit. The Court dismissed these objections, holding that a revocation petition can be sustained even after the patent term expires.
Jitesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Maheshwary v.Babushah Ibrahimsha Juneja & Anr.
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged an interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in Trademark Suit No. 1 of 2023. The original plaintiffs sought relief against alleged infringement of their registered copyright and passing-off of their trademark 'RAJ KHUSHBU' concerning Ayurvedic Medicinal Oils. The High Court, while not examining the merits of the underlying dispute, quashed the lower court's order on the grounds that it was non-speaking. Consequently, the injunction application was restored to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Novartis seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent IN'026. Natco Pharma sought leave to file an additional written statement, arguing that plaintiffs suppressed documents relating to a prior Divisional Application which led to the grant of the patent. The Court allowed the application, holding that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC grants wide discretion to allow such pleadings in the interest of justice.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The case was filed for a permanent injunction against NATCO PHARMA for infringing on Novartis's Indian Patent No. 233161. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the proceedings.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method involving iron (III) caseinsuccinylate. The Deputy Controller rejected the grant on the grounds that the claimed invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court upheld the respondent's decision.
Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent recommendation made by the Patent Office in a post-grant opposition application filed by Low Cost Standard Therapeutics. The petitioner argued that the process violated the Patents Act, 1970, specifically by denying them an opportunity to present evidence. The High Court quashed the impugned notice and the Board's earlier recommendations.
Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent opposition board recommendation related to Indian Patent No.319927, arguing that the process violated The Patents Act, 1970 by not allowing them to present evidence. The Court quashed the impugned notices and recommendations.
Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd v.Rspl Helathcare P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Judge's order that had granted an ex parte injunction against Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd, restraining it from using the trademark 'PRUEASE'. The court set aside this restrictive interim order. Instead, it directed the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the original application filed by the respondents seeking injunctive relief, allowing both parties a chance to present their case.
Innovative Health Care v.Innovative Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed an Original Application filed by Innovative Health Care seeking to restrain Innovative Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. from using a deceptively similar trademark for medicinal preparations. The court decided to close the current application while granting the applicant full liberty to raise all its contentions in the main suit. This procedural step moves the dispute forward into the substantive litigation phase.
Pfizer Inc. v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiaries, filed a suit alleging that the defendants unlawfully manufactured, sold, and exported the infringing product 'Tofaxen', which is a generic version of their patented drug Tofacitinib (Xeljanz®). The court found that the defendants collectively infringed the suit patents while they were valid and subsisting. However, since the patents had expired during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs did not press for permanent injunction but secured a decree in terms of prayer clause 57(e).
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 404239, which had lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by an exigency in the attorney's family and that the restoration application was filed within the permissible period. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a granted patent should not be refused solely on procedural lapse if the restoration application is timely.
Financiere Batteur Sas v.Kalai Arasu
Financiere Batteur Sas successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to cancel a registered trademark, 'Physiolac AR,' held by Kalai Arasu. The petitioner argued that the mark was adopted in bad faith and had suffered prolonged non-use, violating Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court agreed, finding that the lack of genuine use for over five years demonstrated malafide intent to ride on the petitioner's established international reputation. Consequently, the trademark registration was ordered to be removed from the Register.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh appealed a rejection order passed by The Controller of Patents, which refused their application for "Containers for Compositions Comprising Meloxicam." The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in light of cited prior art. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to address their detailed written submissions distinguishing the invention from the prior arts. The Delhi High Court agreed, noting the Controller's order merely reproduced objections without proper consideration of the arguments, and consequently set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for fresh, reasoned consideration.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.S.A Medline Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited and S.A Medline Private Limited reached a joint settlement in the Delhi High Court regarding a trademark dispute. As part of the compromise, the defendant agreed to withdraw its contested trademark registration (No. 5328362) within seven days. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit against the defendant and allowing for a refund of court fees.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/S. Salus Pharmaceuticals And Another
The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had not demonstrated urgency and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding when they became aware of the infringement and noted a significant delay between knowledge/patent grant and filing the suit.
Intervet International B.V. v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Design
Intervet International B.V. challenged the Deputy Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its novel crystalline forms of the drug 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary and non-speaking, failing to adequately consider expert evidence regarding superior stability. The Madras High Court agreed, finding a violation of natural justice in the original order.
Signal Pharmaceuticals v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
Signal Pharmaceuticals appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents refusing to grant a patent for its mTOR kinase inhibitors. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on a non-speaking order, failing to properly appreciate evidence and ignore the inventive step and therapeutic efficacy of the compound. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences & Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited and Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences reached a full settlement regarding trademark disputes concerning the 'ALL OK+' product. The defendant acknowledged Mankind's exclusive rights to its trade dress and agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks. In exchange, the plaintiff dropped claims for damages, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark provided the trade dress was distinct.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademarks, 'WIN HEALTH PHARMA,' under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core dispute revolves around prior use rights, as the plaintiff claims established goodwill with marks like 'WIN-HEALTHCARE' since 2005, while the defendant holds registrations for similar names. Given that both parties presented substantial arguments regarding priority and similarity, the court found prima facie merit in the plaintiffs' plea of invalidity.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Astrazeneca filed suit against Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited alleging infringement of its patent (IN 297581) covering the cancer drug Osimertinib. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages, asserting that the defendant's offer to contractually manufacture and sell the patented compound constituted infringement. Despite initial defenses by the defendant regarding regulatory approval issues, the court found that due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement within the statutory period, the suit was decreed in favor of AstraZeneca, granting them relief and substantial costs.
Kedar Nath Mishra v.Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court deferred the appeals filed by Kedar Nath Mishra against Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed further time for arguments and noted that the respondent required additional time to place documents on record regarding an amendment to its trademark registration, reflecting usage since 31.12.2007. Consequently, the appeals were released from part-heard status and rescheduled for a later date.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking permanent injunctions and recall orders against the defendant regarding the sale of 'Sigrima', a biosimilar of Pertuzumab, infringing patents IN 268632 and IN 464646. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable loss.
Embio Limited v.Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Embio Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 249376 granted to Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., alleging that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step. The court examined the arguments regarding prior art and technical advancement but found no illegality or perversity in the grant.
Lakshay Agarwal v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines on a patient-to-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record the general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications filed in India concerning DMD medicines.
Master Arnesh Shaw Through His Next Friend And ... v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta to document a bulk procurement process and provide details of all its relevant Indian patents and patent applications.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The court heard matters concerning the procurement process for medicines used for DMD patients, noting that the current patient-by-patient system is cumbersome and unrealistic. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a general bulk procurement process and disclose its relevant patent portfolio in India.
Pfizer Inc v.Teena Biolabs Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner and the establishment of a Confidentiality Club. The petition aimed to facilitate the collection of confidential documents and testimony from Teena Biolabs Private Limited in India, which are relevant to ongoing patent infringement litigation (US Patent No. 9,770,441) before the US District Court for the District of Delaware.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The suit concerned infringement of Patent IN 2287201 for Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction and deposit of revenues. Given the patent was nearing its expiration, the Court issued directions requiring the Defendant to disclose earnings and earmark 20% of net sales value in a No Lien account.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Sanshiv Health Tech Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the pharmaceutical infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises. This order provides a robust mechanism for the plaintiff to secure evidence related to alleged infringement.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, Mankind Pharma Limited sought an injunction against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited regarding the use of the mark 'TOFASTAR' versus 'TOBASTAR'. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to settle the dispute at the earliest opportunity, leading the court to renotify the case for further proceedings.
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.