Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2015
$~ 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2405/2013 Judgment pronounced on 28th May, 2015 % UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.C.M. Lal, Ms.Nancy, Ms.Rajeshwari H. and Ms.Aparna, Advs versus AJAY GARG AND ANOTHER ..... Defendant Through: Ms.Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sushant Singh, Ms.Subha Shiny and Mr.P.C. Arya, Advocates for defendant no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J I.A.13409/2014 & I.A.1372/2014 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos.190476 and 202013 unfair competition, delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages, etc.2. While issuing summons in the suit, the defendants were restrained from marketing, selling, distributing, advertising export offering for sale and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in any product that infringes the claims of the aforesaid Patents.3. Two applications are being taken up for hearing, being I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-30-2015
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:10. h March, 2015 Judgment Delivered on:30. h April, 2015 % + FAO(OS) 82/2015 VLS FINANCE LTD ..... APPELLANT VERSUS SOUTHEND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD & ANR ..... RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Mr. Samit Khosla, Mr. Chetan Sharma and Mr. Ashok Kr. Sharma, Advocates. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Matta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Auluck, Ms Manjula Baxla and Mr. Raghav, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay K. Sondhi, Mr. Venancio D Costa, Mr. Ashish Kr. Singh and Mr. Harshed Pathak, Advocates for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J1 The controversy as of now that has arisen is whether from the impugned order an intra court appeal would lie under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-19-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:19. h January, 2015 + CS (OS) No.678/ 2013 SYMED LABS LTD. Through: ..... Plaintiff Ms. Shwetasree Majumdar, Advocate with Mr. Prithvi Singh, Advocate and Mr. Rajeshwar, Advocate versus GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rajeshwari H., Advocate, Mr. S. Hariharan, Advocate, Mr. Tahir Abdul Tabbur, Advocate, Ms. Anindita Mitra, Advocate and Ms. Aparna, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL I.A. No.5908/ 2013 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) and I.A. No.5417/ 2013 (Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC) in CS (OS) No.678/ 2013 1. By virtue of this application, the Plaintiff seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or directly or indirectly dealing in the product Linezolid manufactured in a manner so as to result in infringement of the Plaintiffs registered pate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: March 13, 2015 I.A. No.6735/2014 in CS(OS) No.1045/ 2014 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. & Mrs.Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mrs.Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Mr.B. Prashant Kumar, Mr.Saurabh Anand and Mr.Vihan Dang, Advs. versus INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LIMITED ..... Defendant Through Mr.Saikrishna Rajgopal, with Mr.J.Sai Deepak, Ms.Savni Dutt & Ms.Rachel Mamatha and Mr.Subhajit Banerji, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of rights in eight patents registered in India alongwith damages/rendition of accounts and delivery up etc.2. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiff has filed the interim application being I.A. No.6735/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. By this order, I propose to decide the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:09. 01.2015 Pronounced on:20. 03.2015 + FAO (OS) 190/2013, C.M. APPL. 5755/2013, 466/2014 & 467/2014 MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORPORATION AND ANR. Appellant Through: Sh. T.R. Andhyarujina, Sh. Kapil Sibal, Sh. Prag Tripathi, Sr. Advs. with Sh. Pravin Anand, Ms. Tusha Malhotra, Ms. Udita. M. Patro and Sh. Salim Inamdar, Advocates. Versus GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS ..Respondent Through: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Ms. Prathiba. M. Singh, Sh. Rajiv Virmani, Sr. Advocates with Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Ms. Anusuya Nigam and Sh. Saurabh Anand, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJWI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The appellant Merck Sharp & Dohme (hereafter MSD) is aggrieved by the dismissal of its application for an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (hereafter Glenmark) from using its patented product Sitagliptin (Indian Patent No.209816,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:9. h January, 2015 % + I.A. No.24863/2014 IN CS(OS) 3812/2014 NOVARTIS AG & ANR Through ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Hemant Singh, Ms.Mamta R.Jha, Ms.Shilpa Arora & Mr.Talha Rahman, Advs. versus CIPLA LTD Through ..... Defendant Mr.P.Chidambaram, Sr. Adv., Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. and Mrs.Prathiba M. Singh, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Bitika Sharma, Ms.Anusuya Nigam & Mr.Vihan Dang, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent no.222346 granted under The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in favour of plaintiff No.1, rendition of accounts/damages, delivery-up etc. By this order I propose to decide the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.2. Two plaintiffs have filed the present suit against Cipla Ltd. The plaintiff No.1 (the expression include...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:9. h January, 2015 % + I.A. No.24863/2014 IN CS(OS) 3812/2014 NOVARTIS AG & ANR Through ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Hemant Singh, Ms.Mamta R.Jha, Ms.Shilpa Arora & Mr.Talha Rahman, Advs. versus CIPLA LTD Through ..... Defendant Mr.P.Chidambaram, Sr. Adv., Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. and Mrs.Prathiba M. Singh, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Bitika Sharma, Ms.Anusuya Nigam & Mr.Vihan Dang, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent no.222346 granted under The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in favour of plaintiff No.1, rendition of accounts/damages, delivery-up etc. By this order I propose to decide the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.2. Two plaintiffs have filed the present suit against Cipla Ltd. The plaintiff No.1 (the expression include...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-07-2015
1. Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendant for permanent injunction praying therein that defendants, its directors, employees, officers etc. be restrained from making, using, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale or dealing in Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate or any other salt of Sitagliptin in any form, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or from doing any other thing that infringes the claimed subject matter of the plaintiffsIndian Patent No. 209816. Damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up of the infringing materials has also been prayed. 2. Briefly stated, plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that plaintiff no. 1 was formally known as Merck and Company, Inc. Plaintiff no. 1 has been incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, USA, having its principal place of business at Whitehouse Station, USA. Plaint has been signed and verified by its constituted Attorney- Mr. K.G. Ananthakrishnan. Plaintiff no.2 is a licensee of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-27-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. and Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Though at first blush the plot and premise of the Roche Vs. Cipla dispute appears to be straightforward “ Roche claims that on March 31, 1991, it filed an application for grant of patent in USA pertaining to Erlotinib Hydrochloride, resulting in grant of patent US 498 on August 05, 1998. During pendency of its application in USA, on March 13, 1996 it filed an application in India for grant of patent for the same molecule which was granted to it vide IN 774 on February 23, 2007. The marketable physical form of the molecule comprised polymorph A and B. Further research revealed that polymorph B was more thermodynamic and as per Roche would qualify for enhanced efficacy and thus on November 09, 2000 it applied for grant of patent for polymorph B of Erlotinib Hydrochloride in USA resulting in grant of patent US 221. Similar application filed in India on February 06, 2002 i.e. DEL 507 was rejected. As per Roche, IN 774 granted in February 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-08-2015
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. Both these cross appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.04.2014, whereby the learned Single Judge has held that the suit cannot be rejected or dismissed at this stage as prayed for by the defendants and has directed that the pending application of the plaintiff for registration of the exclusive licence agreement dated 01.08.2006 shall be decided by the Patent Office within six months from the date of the judgment and pending the decision in the said application, all pending applications in the suit and the suit have been adjourned sine-die. 2. The plaintiff SERGI Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited has filed the present suit against the defendants - CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited seeking permanent injunction restraining them from infringing the registered Indian Patent No. 189089 and for damages, rendition of accounts, delivery, etc. Defendant No. 1 Mr. Kumar Pratap Anil is Managing Director of Defendant No. 2 “ CTR. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!