|

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Novartis AG & Anr.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Novartis AG & Anr. Before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Date of Decision: 18.10.2014 FAO(OS) No. 447 of 2014 Respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from infringing Respondents’ Patent. The suit along with the application for interim relief came up for preliminary consideration…

|

NOVARTIS AG AND ORS. v. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.

NOVARTIS AG AND ORS. v. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. 08.09.2014 In The High Court of Delhi Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendant towards infringement of it’s Patent being Patent No. 212815 for active pharmaceutical ingredient called Vildagliptin which treats Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus marketed as GALVUS and GALVUSMET. Plaintiffs’ Case: Defendant has included Plaintiffs’ patented…

| | |

V. Manicka Thevar Vs. Star Plough Works

V. Manicka Thevar Vs. Star Plough Works, Melur AIR 1965 Madras 327 Appellant filed a suit against the Respondent for permanent injunction from manufacturing and selling certain patterns of ploughs on the ground that the same was an infringement of the Appellant’s patent. The Appellant secured an interim injunction, but, on an application filed by…

| |

Dr. Alloys Wobben and Anr. v. Yogesh Mehra and Ors.

Dr. Alloys Wobben and Anr. v. Yogesh Mehra and Ors.; 02.06.2014; Supreme Court of India A Question of law came up before the Supreme Court on the issue of Multiplicity of proceedings for Revocation of Patent. The question was framed as follows, In case, there is already a revocation petition filed by an entity against…

| |

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

3M Innovative Properties Company & Anr. Vs. Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Plaintiff No. 1 was the owner of the suit patent for flat folded personal respiratory device. The invention was being used against air pollution specifically for dusts. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants infringed their suit patents….

|

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson(PUBL) v. Mercury Electronics & Anr.

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson(PUBL) v. Mercury Electronics & Micromax Informatics Ltd. I.A. No. 15542 of 2013 IN CS(OS) NO. 442 of 2013 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Decided on: 06.12.2013 The Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of patent. Later, the Plaintiffs filed an application to bring on record an additional…

|

Bayer Corporation and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Bayer Corporation and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Writ Petition No. 7833/2008 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Decided on: 18.08.2009 The Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to, inter alia, restrain grant of drug license in regard to an application by the third Respondent (Cipla) for the license to manufacture, sell…

|

Bristol Myers Squibb Company and Anr. v. V.C. Bhutada & Ors.

Bristol Myers Squibb Company and Anr. v. V.C. Bhutada & Ors.  CS(OS) No. 2801 of 2012 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Decided on: 11.10.2013 The Plaintiffs (Bristol Myers Squibb Company and Bristol Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd.) filed a suit against the Defendants, i.e. V.C. Bhutada, (Defendant No. 1), Shilpa…

| |

M/s. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Bristol Myers Squibb Co.

M/s. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Bristol Myers Squibb Co. CLA No. 1 of 2013 before the Controller of Patents, Mumbai Decided on: 29.10.2013 The applicant (M/s. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd.) requested the patentee (M/s. Bristol Myers Squibb Co.) for a voluntary license to manufacture and market active pharmaceutical ingredient DASATINIB covered…

|

Union of India v. Dr. Ravindranath Pradhan

Union of India v. Dr. Ravindranath Pradhan  Writ Appeal No. 109 of 2008 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore Decided on: 29.08.2013 The respondent filed a patent application on 19.06.1992 for a process of preparing slow burning coloured cigarette. Certain objections were raised. The respondent replied to the said objections but due…

|

Puneet Kaushik and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Puneet Kaushik and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 1631 of 2013 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Decided on: 23.09.2013 The petitioners through their counsels filed on 14.09.2012 an international (PCT) application along with Form-25 at the Patent Office in New Delhi. Thereafter, an e-mail was sent to the…

| |

Microsoft v. Motorola

Microsoft v. Motorola C.A No. C10-18230LR FACTS: In October 2010, Motorola sent two letters[1] to Microsoft, offering to license its H.264 and 802.11 Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) on terms that, Microsoft calculated, would result in a royalty of $4 billion. These two SEPs related to certain Wi-Fi and video compression SEPs. Microsoft responded by filing…