Pharma — India Patent Cases
971 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 33 · 971 total
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the removal of a conflicting trademark, 'KINDPAN,' registered by Respondent No. 1 in Class 5. The court ruled that the registration was unsustainable because Mankind is the prior adopter and well-known proprietor of the 'KIND' family of marks in the pharmaceutical sector. By allowing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that established goodwill and extensive use grant heightened protection to a trademark owner against confusingly similar registrations.
Psychotropic India Limited v.Meridian Medicare Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Psychotropic India Limited against Meridian Medicare Ltd. The court found that Respondent No. 1 adopted the mark 'TROMA' with malafide intent, capitalizing on the goodwill established by the petitioner in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the prior use and distinctiveness of the petitioner's marks (TROMANIL, TROMA), the court ruled that the registration held by the respondent was contrary to the Trade Marks Act, leading to its cancellation.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche filed a suit alleging infringement of its species patent (IN 334397) for the drug Risdiplam, marketed as EVRYSDI®, by Natco Pharma Limited. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the API. However, the court found that the defendant had raised a credible challenge regarding the validity of the patent. Considering the public interest in affordable medicine for rare diseases like SMA, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, though it clarified that damages would be payable if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in the trial.
Neoculi Pty Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Neoculi Pty Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, Kolkata, which rejected its application for an antibacterial pharmaceutical composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps, unpatentability under Section 3(e), and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to non-application of mind and remanded the matter.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Bristol Myers Squibb challenged communications from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Patent Application No. 5948/CHENP/2014, arguing that additional documents submitted by the opponent (Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance) should not be considered due to procedural non-compliance. The court ultimately declined to interfere with the decision to receive these documents but directed that the proceedings must conclude expeditiously within three months.
Akebia Therapeutics, INC. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Akebia Therapeutics appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647000423). The rejection was primarily based on the argument that amending the original method-of-treatment claim to a pharmaceutical composition claim violated Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside this order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The review petition was filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the original judgment dated January 15, 2025. The core dispute revolved around whether raising a defense of invalidity in an infringement suit (Section 107) prevents the patentee from filing a separate revocation petition (Section 64).
Bionorica Se v.Union Of India And Ors
Bionorica Se appealed against a rejection order passed by the Patent Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was perverse and lacked reasoned application of mind. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it cryptic and unreasoned, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on merits.
Shaperon Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Shaperon Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning compositions for treating allergic skin disorders containing GPCR19 agonists. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
University College London v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
University College London appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application concerning 'A Delayed Release Drug Formulation.' The core dispute centered on whether the complete specification of the parent application related to more than one invention, which was the basis for rejection. The appellant argued that their claims were distinct and did not constitute double patenting. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for reconsideration.
Jansen Pharmaceutica Nv v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Jansen Pharmaceutica appealed the rejection of its patent application for a dry, intravenously administrable formulation of tipifarnib. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive steps and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court found that the impugned order was vague, lacked reasoning, and failed to apply established principles for determining inventive steps.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others v.Drugs Controller General of India & Others
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against generic manufacturers (Hetero and Cadila) seeking permanent injunctions. The current judgment addresses applications for the disclosure and production of documents related to the defendants' regulatory approvals, arguing that the approvals were obtained by suppressing material facts.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological cancer drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against the Drugs Controller General of India and associated defendants. The current judgment addresses applications seeking disclosure and production of documents related to the DCGI approvals granted to bio-similar versions of these drugs.
Mankind Pharma v.Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mankind Pharma against Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd., directing the removal of the trademark 'LENOKIND'. The court found that 'LENOKIND' was confusingly similar to Mankind Pharma’s established and well-known family of marks, particularly those containing the element 'KIND'. Given Mankind Pharma's extensive prior use, massive market presence in pharmaceuticals, and acquired goodwill, the registration of 'LENOKIND' was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Novartis Ag v.Cdymax (India) Pharma Private Limited
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the compound Ribociclib, used in breast cancer treatment. The defendant allegedly started manufacturing and exporting the patented compound without authorization.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking judicial assistance from the Madras High Court to execute Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court at Delaware. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' covering VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications in the U.S.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking execution of Letters Rogatory issued by a US District Court. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' related to VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner and setting up protocols for evidence collection.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Ethichem Biotech
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Ethichem Biotech and others, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright related to the product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA and for passing off. Despite the initial claims of trademark and copyright violations, the parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Micor Labs Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited sought the rectification of Micor Labs Limited's trademark 'DOLOBENE', arguing it was deceptively similar to their mark 'DOLOBAN'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay and acquiescence. The court found that Mankind had lost its right to claim prior user due to the significant lapse between Micor Labs' registration date and the filing of the rectification application.
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.