Pharma — India Patent Cases
742 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 25 · 742 total
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher Pvt Ltd v.Rama Krishna Books
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher Pvt Ltd against Rama Krishna Books. The publisher alleged that the defendant was selling substandard, infringing copies of their medical textbooks while also misusing their registered trademarks. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and ruled that granting the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business interests in the specialized medical publishing market.
Genentech, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Genentech appealed the rejection of its patent application for a medicinal compound, 'Inhibitors of IAP', by the Controller. The Controller rejected the claims citing lack of novelty and inventive step under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Controller's objections farfetched.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
International pharmaceutical companies (Petitioners) challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent. They argued that the Board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by them under Rule 60, due to inaction by the Patent Controller.
Pfizer Inc. v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Limited
The court confirmed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier, restricting defendants from dealing in infringing products related to Patents No. 243571 and 250050, as other patents had expired. The court also directed service of notice for discovery regarding the origin and import of impugned products and allowed amendments to the plaint.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc and Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Union of India, The Controller of Patents & Designs, Zydus Healthcare Limited
The petitioners, international pharmaceutical companies, challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent (IN340060). They argued that the board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the petitioners. The court found that the Controller's failure to pass orders on procedural applications led to an incomplete scrutiny, thus vitiating the recommendations.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of Patent 369150, which covers a novel process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop the defendants from using or manufacturing the subject compound. However, the court noted evidence presented by the defendants showing they were already manufacturing the compound through a similar process prior to the patent application date.
Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Bayer appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 5818/DELNP/2006), which was rejected on grounds that the composition did not meet criteria under Sections 3(e) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not clearly communicating all objections in the hearing notice, and ruled that the claimed composition was patentable.
Eli Lilly And Company Private Limited v.Eskayef Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs, Eli Lilly And Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. IN 297760 (covering Abemaciclib) by the Impugned Drug 'Abeclib', manufactured by Defendant No. 1. The court prima facie found that 'Abeclib' infringes the patent and granted an interim injunction.
Wyeth Llc v.The Controllers Of Patents
Wyeth LLC appealed an impugned order regarding its patent application. The core dispute revolves around amendments made by the appellant from a PCT application (claiming a 'regimen') to subsequent national phase applications (claiming a 'combination' and 'pharmaceutical pack'). Wyeth argues these amendments were within the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Pfizer Inc. v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Pfizer Inc. claims that Beacon Pharmaceuticals has infringed on their patents. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favor of the Plaintiffs regarding the subsisting patents.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr
This order addresses an interim injunction application filed by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited (Plaintiff) against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd (Defendant). The court noted that the suit patent IN'720 was nearing its expiration date. The parties debated whether to proceed with the hearing given the imminent expiry and broader legal questions regarding patent coverage versus disclosure.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
This order addresses an application seeking five corrections to a previous judgment dated March 1, 2024. The plaintiffs sought corrections primarily regarding the timeline of Natco's revocation filing relative to Kudos' infringement suit, and technical errors in referencing patent numbers and claim descriptions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
The plaintiffs filed a suit for patent infringement regarding Sitagliptin (Patent No. 209816). An ex-parte ad interim injunction was previously granted restraining the defendants from dealing in infringing products. The court noted that the patent has since lapsed, making the injunction infructuous, but allowed the plaintiffs to seek relief of costs and damages.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents
Micro Labs Limited filed this Commercial Suit seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301 and an injunction against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH Co. KG. The court noted that the same parties were involved in related proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the application to withdraw the suit was allowed.
Erytech Pharma v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Erytech Pharma filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the Assistant Controller's decision regarding Indian Patent Application No. 661/CHENP/2010. The appellant subsequently sought and was granted leave to withdraw the appeal.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a pre-grant opposition by the Patent Office despite an internal decision to proceed with the patent grant. The court addressed procedural issues related to the timing of the decision versus the filing of the opposition, referencing Section 43 of the Patents Act.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals, the registered proprietor of Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, which was supported by an interlocutory injunction application.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, the registered proprietor of Indian Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, and subsequently an interlocutory injunction.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed the order dated October 31, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Impugned Order rejected the Appellant's patent application (No. 77/DELNP/2015) under Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of applications related to condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents while allowing the respondent to file a reply.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the refusal, which cited claims that were not part of the final application submission. The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and procedurally flawed.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Zenon Healthcare Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Zenon Healthcare Limited and Krishnam Bio-Tech alleging trademark and copyright infringement related to its product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINOZVIT, as well as relief for passing off and unauthorized reproduction of artistic works. Both parties ultimately resolved their dispute amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise.
Duke University v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Design
Duke University appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'LASOFOXIFENE TREATMENT OF ER+ BREAST CANCER' by the Deputy Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and statutory objections (Sec. 2(1)(ja) and Sec. 3(i)), without permitting the appellant to amend its claims as requested.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated filed a petition challenging a notice issued regarding a pre-grant opposition filed by respondent no. 3 against its Indian Patent Application. Vertex claims that the opposition could not have been filed after the Controller had already decided to proceed with the grant of the patent.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
F- Hoffmann -La Roche filed a suit for infringement against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning two patents related to Pertuzumab, a monoclonal antibody used in cancer treatment. The court issued several procedural orders and directed both parties to provide exhaustive legal and scientific assistance, including disclosing experts and considering an independent Scientific Advisor, while the core issue of formulation identity remains pending.
Ovid Therapeutics, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ovid Therapeutics appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for 'Methods of Increasing Tonic Inhibition and Treating Secondary Insomnia'. The initial rejection cited multiple grounds, including non-patentability (Section 3(i) and 3(e)), lack of inventive step, and insufficient disclosure. Ovid Therapeutics argued that their composition offered a synergistic effect and provided novel dosage information not present in the prior art. This appeal challenges the Controller's decision to refuse patent protection for the pharmaceutical methods.
M/S. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Elder Projects Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Elder Projects Limited alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINCODER for pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages. However, the parties successfully reached an amicable resolution through mediation.
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd & Anr., Corona Remedies Pvt Ltd, Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims by interpreting product-by-process claims as limited only to the specific manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed this significant issue, clarifying that the scope of a patent claim cannot be unduly narrowed merely because it is described using a 'product-by-process' format. The court emphasized that claim construction must define the full scope of protection granted by the patent, allowing the suit proceedings to continue based on this clarified legal position.
Vifor International Ltd v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims to only the manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed the critical issue of product-by-process claims, emphasizing that the scope of a patent monopoly cannot be limited solely by the process used to obtain the product. The court clarified that claim construction must define the full scope of the invention as disclosed in the complete specification, allowing for broader protection than merely the method.
Vifor (International) Limited v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor (International) Limited appealed an interim injunction order that restricted its claims to only the process aspect, arguing against the narrow interpretation of product-by-process patents. The Delhi High Court addressed the significant issue of how such claims should be construed under the Patent Act, 1970. The court clarified that a patent's scope cannot be limited solely by the process used, emphasizing that claim construction must define the full extent of the monopoly granted to the patentee. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the restrictive judgment was set aside.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Azista Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The suit concerns the infringement of Plaintiff No. 1's patent (IN 297581) related to the drug Osimertinib, a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancers. The Plaintiffs sought an ad interim injunction against the Defendants who were allegedly manufacturing and selling infringing versions under the brand OSITAB.
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.