Takeda Chemical Industries v. Alphapharm PTY., L

28-Jun-2007

In the latest (June 28, 2007) landmark jugdment of the CAFC-Federal Circuit, the Appeal Court has unanimously confirmed infringement of Takeda\'s patent by Alpharma (Pioglitazone). The case has been distinguished in context over earlier Judgment in KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court) and Pfizer v. Apotex (CAFC). INFRINGEMENT CONFIRMED IN THE LATEST (POST KSR V. TELEFLEX AND PFIZER V. APOTEX) DECISION

Integra Lifesciences I, LTD., et al. v. Merck KGaA, et al. [corrected]

EXPANDED RESEARCH EXEMPTION IN USA

Famous landmark case on Research Based Exemptions, which went all the way from District Court to the Supreme Court of the USA , has now been finally decided by the USCA for the Federal Circuit on July 27, 2007 (corrected as remanded by the Supreme Court of USA). While Circuit Judge Newman and Circuit Judge Prost delivered majority opinions, Circuit Judge Rader delivered dissenting-in-part and concurring-in-part opinion.

Frazer et al v. Schlegel, et al

VEXATIOUS PATENT PRIORITY ISSUES — 28-Jun-2007

The most frequently asked question is about 'Priorities'. If a prior application is published later granted later or a later application is granted earlier, who will infringe whom? While in the Pre-TRIPs regime the National filings used to receive favorable treatment, in the Post-TRIPs regime, priority from overseas filings (including PCT) receive respect and due recognition even in countries like USA, where "First to Invent" over "First to File" prevails. In the following Judgment these issues have been analyzed and the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals of USPTO was reversed by the USCA for the Federal Circuit granting priority to the earlier overseas filing.

Pfizer vs. Apotex - Amlodipine case

LOOKING FOR EXPECTED RESULTS - DISCOVERY?

In this landmark Judgment, the CAFC- Federal Circuit decided that, species claim was obvious in view of prior art genus claim (Amlodpine Besylate/ Maleate over Amlodipine salts), especially when there are no unexpected results.

Medimmune v. Genentech .

The Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on Certiorari to the judgment of the US Courts of appeals for the Federal circuit.

Microsoft Corp. vs. AT&T Corp.

Since, Microsoft does not export from US, the copies of Windows installed on foreign made computers do not infringe the US patents of AT&T Corp. Because no physical object originating in the United States was combined with these computers, there was no violation of 271(f).

KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex INC.

When the obviousness of the claim is apparent in light of factors such as, content of the prior art, scope of the patent claim and the level of ordinary skill in the art, summary judgment of invalidity is appropriate. The invalidity judgment of obviousness by the District Court is upheld by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals (FC) decision in a narrow rigid manner inconsistent with Sec 103 of 35 USC is reversed. This landmark Judgment further tightens the obviousness criteria in Us Jurisprudence

Aventis Pharma & King Pharma v. Lupin LTD

This case relates to Ramipril (Altace). Aventis Pharma & King Pharmaceuticals had sued Lupin for infringing US Patent 5,061,722 (the 722 patent) under the doctrine of equivalents. The District court held that the claims of 722 patent were not invalid. Lupin appealed from these decisions. Aventis cross-appealed for rejection of willful infringement by District court. The Appeals Court, CAFC, found the claims of Aventis's 722 patent obvious over prior art. Merck had originally patented Enalapril and Aventis developed a derivative called Ramipril. The 5(S) stereoisomer of Ramipril in a form substantially free of other isomers was held obvious and hence, claims 1 and 2 were held invalid under under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the SCH 31925 mixture, the 944 patent, and the Enalapril references in the prior art.

In Re Omeprazole Patent Litigation

Astra Aktiebolag, Aktiebolaget Hassle, Astra Merck Enterprises Inc., Astra Merck Inc., KBI-E, INC., KBI, Inc., and Astrazeneca LP, v. Andrx Pharmeceuticals, Inc., and Genpharm, Inc., Kremers Urban Development Co., and Schwarz Pharma, Inc.,

In Re Gabapentin Patent Litigation

Warner-Lambert Co., Pfizer, Inc.,and Godecke Aktiengesellschaft, v.Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. and Faulding, Inc.,and Watson Laboratories, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,Watson Pharma, Inc., and Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.,and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,Zenith Laboratories, Inc. (now known as IVAX Pharmaceuticals NV, Inc.), Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now known as Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)and Ivax Corp.,and Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc.,and Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.,

Eli Lilly and Company v. Actavis Elizabeth Llc

Pfizer v. Apotex

Pfizer's appeal on Amlodipine turned down by Supreme Court of US.

Eli Lilly v. Teva & Dr Reddy.

McKesson Information Solutn Inc v. Bridge Medical, Inc

When related prior art material disclosures are not made in the patent application and are not continuously intimated to the patent office thereafter, such a conduct is considered inequitable and the patent application is to be declared invalid and unenforceable. Incase of prior art materials, disclosures should be made in the patent application and as such should be communicated to the patent office as and when available to the patent applicant.

In Re Translogic Tech

F & G Research v. Paten Wireless Tech

International Gamco & John Adams & Scott Henneman & Oasis Technologies v. Multimedia Games

Immunocept Patrice Anne Lee & James Reese Matson v. Fulbright & Jaworski

Schwarz Pharma & Warner Lambert v. Paddock Lab

Abbott lab v.Torpharm Apotex & Apotex Corp

Pharmaceuticals Resources & Par Pharmaceuticals v. Roxane Lab

In a recent landmark judgement, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit arrived at a judgement affirming the earlier district court\'s decision (summary judgement order) determining that the asserted claim of relevant patents were invalid for lack of enablement as required under 35 U.S.C.112.

Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

When an inventor uses the terminology it has been surprisingly found and there is nothing surprisingly, but only obvious that follows, the patent is invalid or non-patentable. For eg. any person skilled in the art would understand and appreciate that there is nothing surprising about a different crystalline form which itself is admittedly stated as a mixture of a, and other crystalline as well as amorphous forms, is evidently attempting to obtain the grant of the patent wrongfully through unsubstantiated claims of surprisingly finding of nonexistent novelty. This also is a clear misconduct on the part of the applicant to wrongfully obtain the patent.

Smithkline Beecham Corporation & Beecham Group v. Apotex Corp & Torpharm, Inc.

Clinical trials before filing patent application leads to Public use (Majority Judgment).Concurring minority judgment (Judge Gajarsa) says that, crystals formed by nature unaided by man is unpatentable.New Crystals or polymorphs of prior known (already patented) compounds are not patentable as the process of formation of these crystal forms is a naturally occurring process, not involving manual intervention.

Forest Laboratories v. Ivax Pharmaceuticals and Cipla(2007-1059, Fed. Cir. Decided on 5th September 2007)

In a patent dispute involving a patent claiming compounds including an antidepressant citalopram, a judgment upholding the validity of a patent in favour of plaintiffs and enjoining defendants from infringing it is affirmed. The \'712 patent issued on August 30, 1994 and relates, inter alia, to a substantially pure enantiomer of citalopram and nontoxic acid additional salts thereof. Acknowledgement : Abstract as forwarded by Dr. V.K. Unni of Nalsar University. Thanks to Dr. V.K. Unni for drawing attention to this caselaw.

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. and Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. International Game Technology and IGT

ATA missed its US national stage filing by one day. The PTO granted ATA\'s petition to revive the application based on the applicant\'s seemingly legitimate claim that the entire delay in filing the appropriate papers was unintentional. Acknowledgment : Thanks to Mr.H.Keeto Sabharwal of Blank Rome LLP, for drawing attention to this case law.

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

23-Apr-1996

It was held that, the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court.

Teva Pharma USA INC v Pfizer INC

21-Jan-2005

Teva’s suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that, that Teva had failed to establish that an actual controversy existed between it and Pfizer, as required under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). However, Judge Mayer dissented arguing that, listing Patents in the Orange Book is a conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension that an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) filer and declaratory judgment plaintiff will face a patent infringement suit.

Triantafyllos Tafas v. Jon W. Dudas, et al & Smithkline Beecham Corporation, et al. v. Jon W. Dudas, et al

01-Apr-2008

Eastern District of Virginia rejected the PTO\'s attempts to enact new rules concerning patent claims and continuations and ruled in favor of GSK on summary judgment. Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr.H.Keeto Sabharwal of Blank Rome LLP, for drawing attention to this case law.

Ortho-Mcneil Pharma Inc V. Caraco Pharmaceutical Labs Ltd

By Staff Writer — 21-Apr-2008

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories has confirmed that the District Court of New Jersey has granted the company\'s motion for summary judgment that the claims of US patent that Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical asserted against Caraco are invalid. Caraco\'s tramadol with acetaminophen product is a generic version of Ortho-McNeil\'s Ultracet.

Pfizer et al. v. Teva Pharms

Judge John C. Lifland of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey adjudged all three of Pfizer\'s patents on Celebrex (celecoxib) to be valid, enforceable, and infringed by Teva. It was held that the patent Nos. 5,466,823 and 5,563,165 covering the active ingredient and a pharmaceutical composition thereof, are valid, enforceable and infringed by the Teva. Further, it was ruled that third patent No. 5,760,068 covering the use in the treatment of inflammation was invalid.

M/S Astrazeneca UK Ltd. Vs M/S Natco Pharma Ltd. India

S.K Roy — 30-Aug-2007

The Patent application No. 841/DEL/1996 was rejected under a pre grant opposition since the invention mentioned did not fulfill the requirement as mentioned u/s 2(1)(j), 3(d). The Controller of patents and Design found the invention novel, but it suffered from obviousness and lack in inventive step over the prior art(EP 0566226).

Caraco Pharma Labs v Forest Labs, Inc., & H. Lundbeck – Escitalopram

01-Apr-2008

This is an action brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and the provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act establishing civil actions for patent certainty, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(C). Plaintiff-Appellant Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (“Caraco”) appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissing its declaratory judgment action for noninfringement against Defendants-Appellees Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al., (“Forest”). Caraco’s action was dismissed for lack of Article III jurisdiction on the grounds that it had been rendered moot when Forest unilaterally granted Caraco a covenant not to sue for infringement of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,916,941. However, in the context of the Hatch-Waxman framework, Forest’s covenant not to sue did not eliminate the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we hold that Caraco’s declaratory judgment action presents a continuing Article III controversy, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Zenith Electronics Corporation v. PDI Communication Systems, Inc

16-Apr-2008

This is a patent infringement case. Two patents are at issue: US 5,495,301 (the “301 patent”) and US 5,502,513 (the “’513 patent”) owned by Zenith. The ’301 and ’513 patents generally relate to televisions and wired remote control devices used in hospital rooms. Zenith appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in favor PDI in Zenith’s suit against PDI for infringement of the ’301 and ’513 patents. The district court entered judgment in favor of PDI after granting summary judgment of (1) invalidity of claim 1 of the ’301 patent and claim 1 of the ’513 patent by reason of anticipation; (2) noninfringement of the ’301 patent; and (3) noninfringement of claim 1 of the ’513 patent.

Roche Palo Alto & Allergan v Apotex

9-Jul-2008

The Federal Circuit maintained its record of never affirming a finding of non-infringement under the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents. In this case, the Court held that relying solely on an expert opinion to establish “principle” of the claimed invention was insufficient to establish a prima facie case under the doctrine. In addition, the Court held that when the ingredients and concentrations of two formulations are both within the scope of the allegedly infringed claims, the two formulations are “essentially the same” for the purpose of evaluating claim preclusion, regardless of a possible difference in mechanisms of action in two formulations. The Court also confirmed that Claim preclusion was not limited by a “change of law” or fairness exception.

Acknowledgment - Thanks to Alston+Bird LLP, for drawing attention to this case law.

F. Hoffmann- La Roche Vs.Cipla Ltd

19-Mar-2008

This order disposes of an application seeking ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant (Cipla) from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff (F-Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd) holds a patent.

Natco Pharma Limited v. Union of India and Others

1-Oct-2008

The Honourable SC of India has directed the reconstitution of IPAB with the inclusion of a new technical member, Dr. P.C.Chakraborti, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, in place of Central Government appointed S. Chandrasekaran. The SC has further directed the IPAB to list the pending Appeals (Nos.TA/001/2007/PT/CH to TA/005/2007/PT/CH) before it for directions on 3rd November, 2008. The matter will be heard and disposed of on day-to-day basis, preferably in the month of November, 2008.

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz, Inc.,

21-Oct-2008

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district courts grant of a preliminary injunction against Sandoz, Inc. (Sandoz), enjoining it from infringing U.S. Patent Nos.6010718 (the 718 Patent), which concern extended release formulations for the antibiotic drug Clarithromycin. The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction pendente lite because the court properly held that Sandoz did not show a likelihood of success on the merits on the issues of invalidity, inequitable conduct, and infringement.

Acknowledgment - Thanks to Alston+Bird LLP, for drawing attention to this case law

Madras High Court sets aside patent on valganciclovir

3-Dec-2008

In a landmark judgment, a bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice A. K. Ganguly and Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla yesterday set aside the patent granted to F. Hoffman-La Roche AG (Roche) for valganciclovir (Patent No. 207232) for failure of the Indian patent office to comply with the patent law and remanded the matter back to the Patent Controller. The judgment setting aside the patent was delivered in a petition filed by two Indian patients groups Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDS (INP+) and Tamilnadu Networking People with HIV/AIDS (TNNP+) who challenged the Indian Patent Offices decision to grant a patent without hearing the pre-grant opposition filed by them.

It Is Improper To Import Claim Limitations From The Specification

5-Jan-2009

Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.

Plain Meaning Refers To The Ordinary And Customary Meaning Given To The Term By Those Of Ordinary Skill In The Art

5-Jan-2009

The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.

The Words Of A Claim Must Be Given Their Plain Meaning Unless Such Meaning Is Inconsistent With The Specification

5-Jan-2009

Although claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.

Applicant May Be Own Lexicographer

5-Jan-2009

An applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s). See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

Bristol -Myers Squibb Company & Ors Vs. Dr. BPS Reddy & Ors Hetero Drugs

19-Dec-2008

It is expected that the Drug Controller General of India while performing statutory functions will not allow any party to infringe any laws and if the drug for which approval has been sought by the defendants is in breach of the patent of the plaintiffs, the approval ought not be granted to the party.

Acknowledgment - Thanks to Shamnad Basheer (Spicy IP), for drawing attention to this case.

F Hoffmann La Roche Ltd v Cipla Ltd

24-Apr-2009

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by F Hoffmann La Roche Ltd alongwith costs quantified at Rs 5 lakhs to restrain Cipla from manufacturing and selling Erlotinib.

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical,Inc v.Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries,Ltd.,et.al

23-Sep-2009

This case is a patent law appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment of invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness.

The case of the Fabulous Fake

Suchita Saigal — 26-Oct-2009

In light of a recent decision of the UK High Court tweeting might just have a new meaning.

Strix Ltd v Maharaja Appliances Ltd - Importance of filing for REVOCATION

6-Nov-2009

The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction restraining Maharaja Appliances from manufacturing and marketing Maharaja Whiteline electric kettle Model No EK 172 as it infringed Strixs patent IN 192511 US 6080968.

Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr.Feroz(Pharma Patents), for drawing attention to this case and Spicy IP for the Report.

Four Seasons Hotels (Barbados) Ltd. & Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. Vs. Sukh Hotels & Motels Pvt. Ltd.

Justice P. B. Majumdar & Justice R.C. Chavan — 12-Nov-2009

The Bombay High Court in its order dated 12th November, 2009 held that the Customers of the Plaintiffs and Defendants belong to a different strata in the society and the Plaintiffs customers would not be confused be the Defendants trademark.

Entrepreneurs List @ Venture Center: ISBA Awards, Revised

Kaushik Gala — 17-Nov-2009

Below is a compilation of resources events & news of interest courtesy of Venture Center.

Delhi High Court rules on Section 8 and 47 of the Patents Act

Prashant Reddy — 20-Nov-2009

Acknowledgment - Thanks to Sumathi\'s wizadry over Google and Prashant Reddy for drawing attention to this case and Spicy IP

Takeda files Para IV infringement suit against Aurobindo

Gireesh Babu, Mumbai — 11-Mar-2010

The Japanese drug major Takeda Pharmaceuticals and its US arm sued the Hyderabad based Aurobindo Pharma and its US subsidiary for alleged Para IV patent rights infringement

Writ Petition filed in the Madras High Court challenging the constitutionality of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Manoj G. Menda — 7-Feb-2011

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Declaration declaring Chapter XI of the TradeMarks Act,1999,and Chapter XIX of the Patents Act,1970,

The Demanding Mistress-Lesson for Applicants: No Room for Internal Docketing Errors

J.Sai Deepak — 3-Sep-2011

Delhi Patent Office delivered in a hearing dated July 26, 2011 in connection with the application 5043/DELNP/2011.

Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr. J.Sai Deepak for drawing attention to this case and The Demanding Mistress.blogspot

Delhi Patent Office Rejects Boehringers Application No. 924/DELNP/2006 Citing Section 3(d)

J.Sai Deepak — 11-Sep-2011

Boehringer Ingelheims Application No. 924/DELNP/2006 was rejected by the Delhi Patent Office earlier this year under section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr. J.Sai Deepak for drawing attention to this case and The Demanding Mistress.blogspot

Paragraph IV Notice Letter

SHWARTZ, United States Magistrate Judge — 15-Dec-2011

This matter comes before the Court by way of the parties’ joint letter, dated April 6, 2011, seeking a ruling as to whether Defendant Tolmar’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter [“Paragraph IV Notice Letter”] is a confidential document that should be protected from unrestricted disclosure under the Discovery Confidentiality Order.

Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr. David A. Loewenstein of Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP for drawing attention to this case

Order of Controller General of Patents granting Compulsory License for Sorafenib

Controller General of Patents, Mr. P. H. Kurian — 12-Mar-2012

Order of the Controller General of Patents granting Compulsory License for Sorafenib (Nexavar) under Section 84 on the grounds that Reasonable Requirements of the public were not satisfied, patented invention was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price and patented invention was not worked in India.

Order of IPAB dismissing Bayer\'s Petition for Interim Stay

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan and Hon’ble Shri D.P.S.Parmar — 14-Sep-2012

Bayer’s prayer for interim stay, pending the appeal against order of the Controller General of the Patents granting Compulsory License for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar), is rejected by the IPAB.

Order of the IPAB upholding the decision of the Controller General granting Compulsory License for Sorafenib

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan and Hon’ble Shri D.P.S.Parmar — 04-Mar-2013

Intellectual Property Appeals Board (IPAB) upholds the decision of the Controller General of Patents, India, granting Compulsory License for Sorafenib (Nexavar.

Supreme Court rejects Novartis Patent on Glivec: Judgment

Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai — 01-Apr-2013

The Supreme Court rejected Novartis\' challenge to Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents act which stood in way obtaining a patent over its anti-cancer drug Glivec (Imatinib).

Delhi High Court rejects Merck's application for interim injunction

Hon'ble Justice Mr. Rajiv Sahai Endlaw — 5-Apr-2013

The Delhi High Court, in its decision dated April,05,2013 dismissed the application for interim relief filed by Merck for its drug 'Sitagliptin' since it holds patent only for 'Sitagliptin' and not for 'Sitagliptin phosphate'. However,the Court directed Glenmark to maintain accounts.

Full Bench Opinion of the Delhi High Court on Designs and Passing Off

Mr. J.Sai Deepak — 17-May-2013

On May 15, 2013, the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court delivered its 94-page opinion on three questions referred to it concerning the Designs Act, 2000 and passing off.

Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr. J.Sai Deepak for drawing attention to this case and The Demanding Mistress.blogspot

Delhi High Court passed an ex-party injunction order in favour of Merck.

Vacation Judge Sanjeev Sachdeva — 17-June-2013

The Delhi High Court, in its decision dated June,17,2013 has passed an ex-parte injunction against Aprica Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. from launching its product since balance of convenience was found in favour of Merck.

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Justice S. Murlidhar — 21-Aug-2013

The Single Bench of Delhi High Court in its order dtd. 21.08.13 refuses to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of Colgate to restrain Hindustan Unilever Ltd. from advertising the impugned TV and printed advertisement which is alleged by Colgate as disparaging its product.

Cipla Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Trademarks & Union of India

Justice K. R. Shriram, Justice S. J. Vazifdar — 23-Sep-2013

The Bombay High Court in its order dated 23rd September, 2013 held that since the Registrar of Trademark had failed to issue the Form O-3 to the Registered Proprietor of the Trademark before removing the Petitioners trademark from the register, which is in non-compliance with Section 23 (5) of the Trademark Act. Hence, the Respondents were directed to grant restoration and renewal of the said Trademark of the Petitioners.

Mr. A D Padmasingh Isaac & M/S Aachi masala Foods(P) Ltd. Vs. Aachi Cargo channels Pvt.Ltd.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M Sundresh — 12-Nov-2013

The Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Plaintiff and declined to grant an order of interim injunction against Defendant.

Mylan Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Pfizer Inc. and Ors.

Hon'ble Ms. S. Usha and Hon'ble Shri D.P.S Parmar — 13-Nov-2013

IPAB dismissed review petition filed by OSI Pharmaceuticals and Roache objecting the order dtd.14/05/2013 passed by the Board relating to Miscellaneous Petition filed by Mylan.

LT Foods Limited vs. Heritage foods (India) Ltd.

Justice S. Murlidhar — 20-Nov-2013

LTFL had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction, restraining HFIL from infringing LTFL's Trademark 'Hertage'. Justice S. Murlidhar in his judgement dtd. 20/11/2013 in the matter of CS(OS)1188/2011 held that LTFL has failed to make out a case for passing off against HFIL and that LTFL has also failed to prove that any cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Anglo French Drugs and Industries Ltd and Anr

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta — 2-Dec-2013

The Delhi High Court in its decision dtd. 02.12.2013 has vacated the earlier interim injunction order passed by this same Court on 18.10.2011.

Colgate Palmolive Company And Anr. vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vidhu Bakhru — 10-Dec-2013

The Div. Bench of the Delhi High Court, in its decision dtd. 10.12.13 has restrained Hindustan Unilever Ltd. or its agents from publishing the impugned print advertisement which disparages Colgate's products and also to delete or suitably modify the statement at the end of the voiceover of the impugned telecommercial which is misleading and inaccurate.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. KG Vs. Premchand Godha And Anr.

Justice S. Murlidhar — 16-Dec-2013

The Delhi High Court in its decision dated 16 Dec.2013 has upheld the injunction granted by it in favour of the Plaintiff.And dismissed the Interim Application filed by the Defendant and disposed of the Interim Application filed by the Plaintiff. However, it stated that if the Defendants are prepared to change the mark of their Cough Syrup in a manner that will not obviate deceptive similarity with the Plaintiffs mark, then they can apply to the court for variation of this order.

Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Real Drinks Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Justice S. Muralidhar — 3-Jan-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dtd. 03.01.2014 has upheld the earlier decision passed by the Division Bench on 03.09.2012.

Cadbury UK Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Lotte India Corporation Ltd.

Justice S. Muralidhar — 24-Jan-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dtd. 24/01/2014 has made absolute the earlier interim injunction granted by the same court restraining Lotte Corporation Ltd. from manufacturing, selling, promoting or in any other manner whatsoever using the marks Choclairs/Parrys Choclairs/Lotte Choclairs or any other marks similar to the Trademark Choclairs of Cadbury UK Ltd. The decision was made after taking into consideration the internationalization of trade.

Steelbird Hi- tech India Ltd. Vs. S.P.S. Gambhir & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh — 24-Feb.2014

The Delhi High Court in its decision dtd. 24 Feb. 2014 has vacated the earlier ex-parte interim order passed on 6 Dec. 2013.

Enercon (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Enercon GMBH & Anr.

Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar — 14-Feb. 2014

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the third arbitrator was appointed by the Court and the parties were directed to proceed with arbitration.

Teijin Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

V.M Kanade & M.S Sonak — 10-Feb. 2014

The Bombay High Court in this particular case has set aside and quashed the impugned order dtd. 03/01/2011 and 09/03/2011 passed by The Controller of Patents, Mumbai and has further directed the Controller of Patents to restore the Patent No. 207883, Teijin was asked to indemnify The Senior Joint Controller of Patents and Design in addition to whatever is stated in Sec. 62 of the Patents Act, 1970.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd & Ors Vs. Natco Pharma Limited.

Justice S. Muralidhar — 28-Feb-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 28th February, 2014 returned the plaint to the Plaintiffs due to lack of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Stating that only because Natco has a Office or a Distributor within the territorial limits of Delhi is immaterial, since the subject matter of the suit is a Process patent and the action taken is for alleged infringement of that process for the purpose of export to overseas Countries.

Philip Morris Products S.A & Anr Vs. Sameer & Ors.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi — 10-Mar-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 10th March, 2014 passed and order in favour of Plaintiffs, permanently restraining the Defendants from infringing and passing off Plaintiffs trademark “Marlboro and the Roof Device”, along with damages to be paid to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants.

Mind Gym Ltd. Vs. Mindgym Kids library Pvt.Ltd.

Justice Manmohan Singh — 21-Mar-2014

The Delhi High Court upheld the order earlier passed restraining the Defendants from infringing and passing off Plaintiffs rights by using the Trademark 'Mindgym' or any other mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark since the balance of convenience was found to be in favour of Plaintiffs.

Wockhardt Ltd. Vs. Remed Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath — 25-Apr-2014

The Delhi High Court passed an order restraining the Defendants from using the Trademark 'Mericobal' or any other mark deceptively similar to it, while the suit is pending. Further added that the injunction order shall apply only after two months after passing of this present order , so as to allow the Defendants to take proper steps in order to cease from using the trademark.

Glaxo Group Ltd. Vs. United Biotech P. Ltd.

Honble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath — 25-Apr-2014

The Delhi High Court has upheld the order passed earlier by it, restraining the defendants from using the impugned Trademark 'Heprotech' or any other mark deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered Trademark 'Hepitec' till the pendency of the accompanying suit, since the balance of convenience was found to be in favour of the Plaintiff.

Abott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajkumar Prasad & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath — 25-Apr-2014

The Delhi High court passed an order restraining the Defendants from using the Trademark 'AMAFORTEN' or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs registered trademark 'ANAFORTAN' till the pendency of the accompanying suit, since the balance of convenience was found to be in favour of the Plaintiff.

Rajeev Kumar & Anr Vs. Microsoft Corporation & Anr

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw — 20-May-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 20th May, 2014 disposed of the application of appeal made by the Defendants to the suit further directing them not to delete any software, inventory of which has been prepared in the report of the Court Commissioner. Finally, directing the parties to appear before the learned Single Judge on 23rd May, 2014 for further orders.

Walter Bushnell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Miracle Lifesciences & Anr.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh — 26-May-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 26th May, 2014 granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the mark "DRATAMOL" in respect of medical and pharmaceutical products which was found to be deceptively similar to Plaintiffs mark "DROTIN", since the balance of convenience was found to be in favour of Plaintiffs.

M/S GM Modular Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Havells India Ltd.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh — 29-May-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 29th May, 2014 has granted an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs restraining the Defendants from telecasting, displaying, showing, broadcasting the impugned advertisement in any media whatsoever since the balance of convenience was found to be in favour of Plaintiffs.. However the Defendants may continue to broadcast the same subject to the condition that the portion of the advertisement which disparages the Plaintiffs product will be removed.

3M Innovative Properties Company & Anr. Vs. M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh — 30-May-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 30th May, 2014 has declined to grant an order of interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and has vacated the earlier passed ex-parte interim order dated 18th December, 2013. Further the Defendants are directed to furnish quarterly statement of accounts.

Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw — 30-May-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 30th May, 2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the Defendants against the order dated 09th May, 2014 of the Learned Single Judge of this court restraining the defendants from using the trademark “ALL-AROUND PROTECTION /ALLROUNDER” or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff‘s trademark “ALLROUND” for the duration of the pendency of the suit.

M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw — 1-Jul-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 1st July, 2014 has upheld the order dated 19th December, 2013 passed by it, restraining the Defendants from passing off their goods as that of the Plaintiffs, since the balance of convenience was found in favour of the Plaintiffs.

Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. & Anr. Vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva — 1-Jul-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 1st July, 2014 has confirmed the earlier interim injunction order passed by it restraining the Defendants from infringing the impugned trademark since the balance of convenience was found in favour of the Plaintiffs

Bayer Corporation Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Mohit S. Shah, C.J and Hon'ble M.S. Sanklecha, J. — 15-Jul-2014

The Bombay High Court in its order dated 15th July, 2014 has dismissed the petition filed by Bayer Corporation challenging the order passed by the IPAB dated 4th March, 2013 in which the Tribunal had upheld the order passed by the Controller dated 9th March, 2012 granting Compulsory Licence to Natco u/s 84 of the Act for the patented drug "NEXAVAR" (Sorafenib Tosylate).

Intellectual property Attorneys Association Vs Union of India and Another

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw — 9-Oct-2014

The Delhi High Court in its order dated 9th October, 2014 held that the Registrar of Trademarks being a quasi judicial authority and/or adjudicatory authority in the context of Section 22 of the TM Act,shall decide the applications for amendment to the registration of Trademark on a case to case basis.

Bayer vs Alembic

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw — 08-Mar-2017

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Indian companies Alembic Pharmaceuticals can export generic versions of Bayer's life saving medicines for research and regulatory purposes.

Farbewerke Hoechst vs Unichem Laboratories

05-Mar-2020

This case triggered revival of Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar Committee Report and the Patent amendment which lead to The Patents Act, 1970.