patent infringement | Intellepedia

Patent Upheld, Design Dismissed: Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation – Part 1: Infringement & Relief

Illustration showing two people in discussion on the left and a justice scale on the right, with the text in between: “Dura-Line to Jain Irrigation: We Patented It. You Replicated It.” on a light green background.

This post analyzes the Delhi High Court’s decision in Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation, where the Court found patent infringement but rejected the design infringement claim.

When Dye Becomes Decisive: Patent Infringement, Equivalence, and Estoppel

A farmer on a tractor ploughing a sunlit field, with a backdrop of green hills and a molecular structure overlay, symbolising agricultural innovation and chemical formulation.

In a patent infringement case, the Delhi High Court denied Crystal Crop Protection’s request for an interim injunction against Safex Chemicals. The dispute in the case centred on a herbicidal formulation containing Clodinafop, Metribuzin, and a dyeing agent. The Court held that the dye was an essential claim element and that Safex’s dye-free products did not infringe, even by equivalence. It also invoked prosecution history estoppel, noting that Crystal’s own claim amendments precluded a broad claim interpretation.

Madras High Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Suit, Allows Coexistence of Technologies

The Madras High Court ruled on a patent infringement dispute involving Arumugam Rajendra Babu and Ashok Leyland over battery-swapping technology. The Court found no infringement and dismissed both the suit and counterclaims, allowing both parties to coexist. The ruling addressed prior art, novelty, and the scope of patent protection in the electric vehicle sector.

Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History

The Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction sought by Jay Switches in a patent infringement dispute against Sandhar Technologies. The Court found no prima facie infringement of Jay Switches’ patent for an airtight fuel cap and highlighted ambiguity in the claims. Sandhar was directed to maintain detailed accounts of product sales pending further proceedings.

Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity

The Delhi High Court upheld Novartis’s patent on Ceritinib, rejecting Natco Pharma’s claims of invalidity and allegations of material suppression. The court ruled that the divisional application’s refusal was immaterial to the case and reaffirmed the patent’s validity based on inventive step, novelty, and therapeutic benefits. Natco’s application to vacate the injunction was dismissed.

Clarifying Product-by-Process Patent Claims in India – West Bengal Chemicals v. GTZ

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court dismissed WBCIL’s appeal seeking an interim injunction against GTZ, providing clarity on product-by-process claims under the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The judgment highlights the crucial role of expert testimony in establishing patent infringement.

Boehringer secures Patent Injunction for its Diabetes Drug – Empagliflozin

On May 30, 2024, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted an interim injunction to Boehringer Ingelheim, restraining Eris Lifesciences from manufacturing, selling, or marketing Empagliflozin tablets due to patent infringement. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining scientific integrity and upheld the validity of Boehringer’s patent.

All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents, a recent decision by Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court in a recent patent infringement dispute, held that ‘all-elements rule’ cannot be adopted to the exclusion of the ‘pith and marrow...

Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.

The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent.

Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court clarifies the nature of product by process patent claims in the ferric carboxymaltose dispute between Vifor International and MSN Labs.