PATENT CASES

Home

ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. (PLAINTIFF) VS EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS

ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. (PLAINTIFF) VS EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS

This case involved patents over a pharmaceutical compound called TICAGRELOR, which is used as oral anti-platelet treatment for Acute Coronary Syndrome.The Plaintiff in the case prayed for an ad interim injunction, which was contested by the Defendants primarily on grounds of invalidity based on patentability. They argued that disclosure of the compound in the genus patent through markush claim precluded its patentability through the species patent in suit.The Court rejected the argument by stating that a markush claim in a patent does not make a subsequent patent claiming one of the markush compounds unpatentable. As the compound in question was launched after filing of the species patent in suit, the Court pointed out that the genus patent does not affect its patentability. It also relied on US litigation and other materials to arrive at the said conclusion. However, the Court refused to grant the interim injunction as the patent had expired. The Court asked the Defendants to maintain accounts until the patent expiry date.

Reference

NOVARTIS V. UNION OF INDIA (2013) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2706-27

NOVARTIS V. UNION OF INDIA (2013) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2706-27

Strix holds a product Liquid Heating Vessels, which was granted patent. The claim of Strix’s patent is that of a liquid receiving container and an electrical heating element provided in thermal contract with the base of container and Maharajaappliances manufacture and sell the same kind of product which is Whiteline electric kettle. Maharaja Applianceschallenged the validity of Strix’s patent on the ground of being a mere workshop improvement on the existing product. The Delhi High court compared the two patents in their essential features and the way the technology worked and decided to grant an interim injunction.

Reference

DHAVAL DIYORA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORSWRIT PETITION (L) NO

DHAVAL DIYORA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORSWRIT PETITION (L) NO

This case involved patents over a pharmaceutical compound called TICAGRELOR, which is used as oral anti-platelet treatment for Acute Coronary Syndrome. The Plaintiff in the case prayed for an ad interim injunction, which was contested by the Defendants primarily on grounds of invalidity based on patentability. They argued that disclosure of the compound in the genus patent through markush claim precluded its patentability through the species patent in suit. The Court rejected the argument by stating that a markush claim in a patent does not make a subsequent patent claiming one of the markush compounds unpatentable. As the compound in question was launched after filing of the species patent in suit, the Court pointed out that the genus patent does not affect its patentability. It also relied on US litigation and other materials to arrive at the said conclusion. However, the Court refused to grant the interim injunction as the patent had expired. The Court asked the Defendants to maintain accounts until the patent expiry date.

Reference

MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP & ANR VS YMS LABORATORIES PRIVATE

MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP & ANR VS YMS LABORATORIES PRIVATE

In this case, the plaintiff, owner of patents pertaining to Sitagliptin and its derivative salts, filed an infringement suit against the defendant. The plaintiff prayed for an Ad Interim Injunction during the pendency of the suit. After reviewing the facts presented, the Court granted an Exparte Ad Interim Injunction as the plaintiff made out a prima facie case. The plaintiff in the case submitted evidence to show that the defendant was planning to launch an infringing product under the brand ‘Stallip – m,’ which enabled it to get the Exparte injunction.

Reference

PATENT - INFRINGEMENT ANALYSIS

STRIX LTD V MAHARAJA APPLIANCES LTD I.A. NO. 7441 OF 2008 IN

Strix holds a product Liquid Heating Vessels, which was granted patent. The claim of Strix’s patent is that of a liquid receiving container and an electrical heating element provided in thermal contract with the base of container and Maharajaappliances manufacture and sell the same kind of product which is Whiteline electric kettle. Maharaja Applianceschallenged the validity of Strix’s patent on the ground of being a mere workshop improvement on the existing product.
The Delhi High court compared the two patents in their essential features and the way the technology worked and decided to grant an interim injunction.

Reference

MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP & A

MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP & A

In this case, the plaintiff, owner of patents pertaining to Sitagliptin and its derivative salts, filed an infringement suit against the defendant. The plaintiff prayed for an Ad Interim Injunction during the pendency of the suit. After reviewing the facts presented, the Court granted an Exparte Ad Interim Injunction as the plaintiff made out a prima facie case. The plaintiff in the case submitted evidence to show that the defendant was planning to launch an infringing product under the brand ‘Stallip – m,’ which enabled it to get the Exparte injunction…

Reference

PATENT - INFRINGEMENT ANALYSIS

STRIX LTD V MAHARAJA APPLIANCE

Strix holds a product Liquid Heating Vessels, which was granted patent. The claim of Strix’s patent is that of a liquid receiving container and an electrical heating element provided in thermal contract with the base of container and Maharajaappliances manufacture and sell the same kind of product which is Whiteline electric kettle. Maharaja Applianceschallenged the validity of Strix’s patent on the ground of being a mere workshop improvement on the existing product. The Delhi High court compared the two patents in their essential features and the way the technology worked and decided to grant an in..

Reference

Get in touch with the Brainiac Team

website Main popup form