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… Read More Bristol Myers Squibb Company and Anr. v. V.C. Bhutada & Ors.
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… Read More M/s. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Bristol Myers Squibb Co.
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… Read More Union of India v. Dr. Ravindranath Pradhan
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… Read More Puneet Kaushik and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Microsoft v. Motorola C.A No. C10-18230LR FACTS: In October 2010, Motorola sent two letters 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… Read More Microsoft v. Motorola
Wheatley v Drillsafe Ltd. Facts: Wheatley (W), the proprietor and licensee of a European patent relating to a threaded hole cutting device, appealed against a decision holding that the patent was invalid on the ground of common general knowledge and accordingly should be revoked, and also that, in any event, there had been no infringement… Read More Wheatley v Drillsafe Ltd.
Verathon Medical (Canada) Ltd v Aircraft Medical Ltd. Facts: A developer and manufacturer of medical devices (V), incorporated in Canada, alleged that a manufacturer of medical equipment (M) from UK infringed V’s patent in respect of an intubation instrument. V also sought for amendment of the patent. M counterclaimed for revocation of the patent on… Read More Verathon Medical (Canada) Ltd v Aircraft Medical Ltd.
Lubrizol Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (No.5) Facts: Lubrizol (L) sued Esso Petroleum (E) for infringement of its patent relating to lubricating oil. E denied infringement, alleging that the patent was invalid, and counterclaimed for its revocation. The grounds for invalidity were that the claim was ambiguous and was not fairly based, that the… Read More Lubrizol Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (No.5)
Kirin-Amgen Inc v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc (No.2) Facts: Kirin-Amgen Inc. (K) was the proprietor of a European patent relating to the production of erythropoietin (EPO) by recombinant DNA technology. EPO was a hormone made in the kidney which stimulated the production of red blood cells. Transkaryotic Therapies Inc (T), a US corporation, had also developed… Read More Kirin-Amgen Inc v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc (No.2)
Improver Corp v Remington Consumer Products Ltd. Facts: Plaintiff in this case were European patentees and inventor of a depilatory machine called “Epilady” which had a spring and, when rotated, plucked hairs from skin. Defendant produced a device called “Smooth and Silky” which plucked hairs using a rubber band. P alleged infringement. D denied infringement… Read More Improver Corp v Remington Consumer Products Ltd.
Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd (No.1) Facts In this case, the plaintiffs were proprietors of a patent for steel lintels. The defendants copied and manufactured it. The defendants then produced a second form of lintel which differed slightly. The plaintiffs brought a second action in respect of this lintel, and further included… Read More Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd (No.1)
Amersham Pharmacia Biotech AB v. Amicon Ltd. Facts: Amersham Pharmacia (AP) appealed against a decision holding that its patent for a particular apparatus and method of chromatography had not been infringed by Amicon (A). The object of the invention was to speed up the time taken to remove debris from the inside of chromatography equipment,… Read More Amersham Pharmacia Biotech AB v. Amicon Ltd.