IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 42 · 1,252 total
Mathys & Squire v.Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka University
Unified Patent Court decision.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) v.Girdhar Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) seeking an interim injunction against Girdhar Industries regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Despite KVIC asserting immense goodwill associated with its 'KHADI' mark, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favor granting a restraining order at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were mandated to maintain and periodically file detailed accounts of their product sales.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
Unified Patent Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
This is an infringement proceeding before the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP4070727. The court addressed the issue of service of process on Dexcom International Limited, which had failed by registered letter at both addresses provided. Abbott submitted evidence that effective service had been accomplished by an Irish process server on 20 December 2023, rendering the alternative service application moot.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
The suit alleged infringement of several patents held by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiffs contended that Dr. Reddy's Laboratories was manufacturing and exporting Olaparib API, violating their patent rights. The court decreed the suit, permanently restraining the Defendant from commercially launching the product before the patent expiry date, subject to Section 107A provisions.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.
GSP Crop Science Private Limited filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of Indian patent no. 298645 (IN645) granted to FMC Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. The petitioner argued that IN645 is invalid because its main patent has expired and it suffers from anticipation by prior claims.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Controller Of Patents Designs
Syngenta Participations Ag filed an appeal challenging the Controller's decision to reject its Indian patent application. The rejection was based on the grounds of lacking inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that sufficient data existed to prove significant enhanced efficacy under Section 3(d). The court allowed applications for condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents before directing notice and setting the matter for further hearing.
Enercon India Ltd. v.M/S. Wobben Properties GmbH
Enercon India Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220033 granted by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. Both parties submitted that the term of the said patent had expired on November 7, 2023.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.
Natco Pharma Ltd filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of Indian Patent No. 314523, granted to FMC Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & FMC Corporation. Natco argues that since the main related patent (IN 204978) expired in March 2021 and has identical claims, IN523 is invalid and liable for revocation.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Synergy Insecticides Pvt Ltd
The dispute between Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd and Synergy Insecticides Pvt Ltd was settled out of court. The Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in products protected by Indian Patent 394568, which covers specific formulations.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Https://Www.Cyberxg.Top/ And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Inter Ikea Systems Bv's application to implead the registrars of the infringing domain names in the ongoing trademark suit. This crucial procedural step allows the plaintiff to directly target the parties responsible for operating the websites, strengthening their case against trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court extended the existing injunction order to these newly added defendants, maintaining the status quo until the final judgment.
Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd v.Rakesh P.Jain
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd against Rakesh P.Jain and the Trade Marks Registry. The petition sought the rectification and cancellation of the trade mark 'BLUEDIO' registered under No.2245731 in Class 09. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo instructing the court to withdraw the entire petition, leading to its dismissal without any order as to costs.
Apex Europe B.V. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge raised by Apex Europe B.V. regarding the refusal of the Trademarks Registry to consider a prior Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order while processing its trademark application for 'GTT'. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to take the IPAB's order into account, provided that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking and indemnity against any liability arising from that order. This resolution allows the matter to proceed based on the historical decision.
Laurus Labs Limited v.Union Of India
This judgment addresses a batch of suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (IMBRUVICA). The writ petition filed by Laurus Labs challenged the earlier decision of the IPAB. The Delhi High Court decided applications for interim relief in these cases. While dismissing the writ petition, the court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits, allowing them only to exhaust existing stock under strict conditions.
Pharmacyclics, Llc & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of patent infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Natco Pharma Limited. The core dispute revolves around the unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug covered by Indian Patent 262968. The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug while the suits are pending. However, it allowed them to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
M/s. Ramcides CropScience Pvt. Ltd. v.Kingdao Agrochem (India) Private Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (No. 299036) concerning 'ZINC HEDP -17%' by the defendant's product, 'Legion Zinc: Zn HEDP 17.0%'. The dispute was settled when the defendant submitted an Undertaking Affidavit agreeing to cease all infringing activities and pay compensation.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals Internationals Private Limited
The suit was filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation and Novartis AG seeking protection of their patent (IN 269841) covering the anti-cancer drug RUXOLITINIB. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant had obtained manufacturing approval for this compound, leading to a quia timet action. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from commercially manufacturing or launching RUXOLITINIB without court permission.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed several interlocutory applications and noted that the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had filed a counterclaim under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of the Plaintiff's patent IN 363203.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited
This judgment addresses a batch of suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC concerning the alleged infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (marketed as IMBRUVICA). The court heard applications for interim relief in these patent infringement cases. While dismissing one writ petition, the Delhi High Court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits. However, it allowed defendants to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr.
This judgment addresses a batch of six infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Shilpa Medicare Limited. The core dispute revolves around the alleged unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug protected by Indian Patent 262968 (IN'968). The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug pending the final disposal of the suits.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited & Ors. / Natco Pharma Limited / Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd / Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr. / Alkem Laboratories Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of six suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants who were launching or had launched the generic version of the patented drug. While the court dismissed one related writ petition, it granted interim relief restraining all defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending the final disposal of the suits. Furthermore, the court allowed defendants to exhaust their existing stock, provided they file an affidavit detailing the batch numbers and expiry dates.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark dispute between BSA Business Software Alliance and Tube Investments of India Limited regarding the use of the mark 'BSA'. The court mandated that both parties agree on clear delineations of services to prevent conflict. Following this agreement, the appeals were disposed of, allowing BSA to register its mark in specific, restricted classes related to software promotion and education (Classes 16, 35, 41, 42). Crucially, the court also ensured that the Respondent's right to seek a declaration as a well-known mark for their goods in Class 12 remains unaffected.
Walter Bushnell Private Limited & Anr. v.Ramesh Juneja & Ors.
Walter Bushnell Private Limited filed a petition seeking contempt action against Ramesh Juneja and others for violating an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order. The IPAB had previously directed the removal of the trademark 'DROTIKIND' (Registration No. 1309918). Despite this directive, the respondent renewed the impugned trademark. Consequently, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their appearance and initiating proceedings related to the alleged violation.
Phoola Rani v.Anita Kharbanda & Anr.
Phoola Rani filed a petition seeking the cancellation of Respondent No. 1's registered trademark 'PREM DI HATTI' (No. 2543229) in Class 43, arguing that she has been using the mark extensively since 1969 for similar food and restaurant services. The court found that the Petitioner prima facie is an aggrieved party due to the similarity of the marks and business purposes. Consequently, notice was issued to the respondents, and the matter was scheduled for further proceedings.
M/s.Carborundum Universal Limited v.Selvam Hardwares
In a dispute over the use of the trademark 'SPEED,' M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited sought injunctions and damages against Selvam Hardwares for alleged infringement and passing off. While the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the commercial aspects of the suit (injunctions, damages, accounts), the Madras High Court proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff's request for a declaration that 'SPEED' is a well-known trademark. The court granted this specific declaratory relief, recognizing the mark's status in relation to diamond cutting and polishing tools.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd. Et al.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of appeal proceedings. The Appellants had sought a shortened deadline for the Respondent's (Panasonic) Statement of response in connection with their appeal against an order rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court held that granting the request would unfairly prejudice the Respondent's right to prepare its response, outweighing the Appellants' interest in filing their Statement of defence in English before the 22 December 2023 deadline.
Inventprise, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Inventprise, Inc. challenged the requirement of prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) concerning its patent application for a 'Heat Stable Liquid Rotavirus Vaccine.' The NBA had previously insisted on compliance with Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, citing the use of human rotavirus strain isolated in India. However, Inventprise argued that the subject matter did not constitute a 'biological resource' under the Act. Recognizing this core dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the NBA Expert Committee to conduct a personal hearing and issue a reasoned order on whether the invention falls within the scope of the Biological Diversity Act.
ABBVIE Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
ABBVIE Inc. appealed the refusal by the Deputy Controller of Patents to grant a patent for two polymorphic forms (Forms A and B) of the compound RTA-408. The appellant argued that these forms exhibited superior stability and properties, and that Section 3(d) did not apply because RTA-408 was not considered a known substance in this context. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the patent to proceed for grant on claims 1-6.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Oplus Mobitech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Koninklijke Philips N.V., filed suit alleging infringement of five Indian patents covering SEPs essential to 3G/4G telecommunication standards by the Defendants, who manufacture and sell OnePlus smartphones. The court addressed an application for a pro-tem arrangement, recognizing the importance of these SEPs in industry standards.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.