Pharma — India Patent Cases
967 decisions indexed
Page 9 of 33 · 967 total
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit regarding infringement of patent IN'841. The court considered the defense that the defendants were only engaged in permitted activities under Section 107(A) and had not yet obtained commercial manufacturing licenses from CDSCO. The court granted an interim order allowing the defendants to proceed with obtaining necessary permissions.
Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v.Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) to introduce a recent trademark registration certificate for 'MEDILICE' into the ongoing litigation. Although the original suit concerned infringement and passing off, the court recognized that the new Class 5 registration could bear on the disputes between the parties. This order allows the introduction of evidence relating to the mark's expanded scope, while preserving the rights of the appellant.
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of their patent application, which claimed a method for generating live vaccines. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was merely a reproduction of the hearing notice and lacked independent reasoning or application of mind to the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Fdc Limited v.Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Fdc Limited against Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'ZIFISAFE' for identical pharmaceutical products constitutes a blatant attempt to capitalize on the established reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ZIFI'. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Sanofi India Limited v.Bullford Wold Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Sanofi India Limited, accepting its request to withdraw it. This withdrawal was based on a favorable judgment previously delivered by the Delhi High Court in a related infringement suit. The Delhi court had decreed the case, mandating that Bullford Wold cease manufacturing and selling products under the impugned trademark 'CANIFLAM' and take steps to surrender the trademark registration.
Emami Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Emami Ltd. seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'CHYAWANPRASAD' registered in favor of Dabur India Ltd. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not using the mark, engaging in what they termed 'ghost registration.' Although the respondent initially conceded non-use, the court directed Dabur to immediately initiate the process for cancellation of the mark from the Trade Mark Registry, effectively favoring Emami's claim regarding the mark's validity and use.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation regarding the amendments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of Patent No. 262968, along with damages and other reliefs. The case involves allegations of contempt against the defendants for violating an interim injunction.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated filed an appeal against the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202117031510. The appellant contends that the refusal was erroneous as the application meets all criteria for patentability, while the respondent argued it failed tests under Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), and 3(e)/3(i) of the Patents Act.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The High Court found that the impugned order was unreasoned because the Controller failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite it being provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of Patent No. 210284, along with damages and other reliefs. The patent has expired, and the remaining issue pertains to the payment of damages.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Natco Pharma Limited for alleged infringement of their valid patent, IN 334397, related to compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy. The court registered the plaint as a suit and addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for written statements.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5948/CHENP/2014) for a hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), known as Rimegepant, by the Indian Patent Office. The opposition was primarily based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, arguing that enhanced bioavailability alone does not guarantee patentability. The High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application for a new hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the compound demonstrated enhanced bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy compared to the free base form. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
Pfizer Inc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Pfizer Inc has filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated March 27, 2024, which refused to grant a patent. Pfizer contends that the refusal was arbitrary, incorrectly concluding that the subject matter lacked technical advancement or failed Section 3(d) requirements.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The appellant argued that the respondent's order was cryptic, failing to discuss prior arts or submitted evidence like a US patent grant. The High Court found merit in these arguments and allowed the appeal.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The High Court found the original order cryptic, noting that it failed to discuss prior arts or address specific submissions made by the appellant regarding synergistic effects and foreign patents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' decision dated March 5, 2024, which refused to grant a Patent under Section 15 of the Act. The appellant also filed an application seeking condonation of eight days delay in filing the appeal.
West Bengal Chemical Industries Limited v.M/s. GTZ (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner, an API manufacturer, claimed that the respondents were infringing their patents (IN370845 and IN434424) related to Ferric Carboxymaltose. The petitioner sought an interim injunction against the alleged infringement. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for granting the injunction.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 by the defendant's manufacturing and sale of generic versions of Empagliflozin and related formulations, including products sold under the trade mark 'Linares-E'.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The suit concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 related to the medicinal product Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted the requested restraint.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, represented by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and its Indian subsidiary, sought an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited for allegedly infringing their Indian Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience, leading to the grant of temporary relief.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 268846. The patent covers pharmaceutical products like Empagliflozin and related formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an injunction.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted an exemption from advance service based on the apprehension that Defendants might flood the market with infringing products before formal service could occur.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation filed a quia timet action against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging impending infringement of its patent (IN2698411) covering the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The parties reached an agreement where the defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture or deal in products containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of on these consent terms.
Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Mr. Muheen Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Abbott Products Operations Ag to cancel the trademark registration 'DUFAKWIK' (No. 4459400) in Class 05. The cancellation was achieved through a mutual agreement, as both parties agreed that the mark should be removed from the Register without any claim for damages. This order provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved efficiently through negotiated settlements before the court.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Microcosm Pharma & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a claim against Microcosm Pharma regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between its registered mark 'PEGMOVE' and the defendant's mark 'PEG-MU'. During court proceedings, the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 voluntarily offered to discontinue the use of the impugned mark and undertake not to adopt any similar marks. While the suit continues for formal registration and issue framing, this offer suggests a potential path toward an amicable resolution.
Cipla Limited v.Bioxen Health Care & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Cipla Limited against Bioxen Health Care & Anr. regarding the use of deceptively similar trademarks for respiratory medicinal products. The court found that Cipla had established a prima facie case based on its registered marks ('BUDECORT' and 'RESPULES') and extensive market presence. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from manufacturing or selling goods under names like 'BUDECOT RESPULES,' while also being required to disclose their sales figures and current stock.
Parijat Industries India Private Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Parijat Industries appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which had revoked its Indian Patent No. 372550 based on grounds under Section 25(2)(b), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court found that the reasoning provided in the Impugned Order was inadequate and did not meet judicial standards.
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.