Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Novartis Ag & Anr. on 18 October, 2014 cites

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Switzerland ... vs Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Central, Mumbai on 7 September, 2012

15. We thus clarify that the observations in paragraph 27 would effectively mean that whether or not there was a suppression of a material fact would be determined after the pleadings are completed and the necessary documents filed and that for the purposes of grant of an ad- interim injunction (as distinct from an interim injunction), as the pleadings were available before the learned Single Judge, he was of the opinion that at said stage it could not be conclusively opined whether there was a concealment of a material fact and thus the learned Single Judge proceeded on the assumption that as of said date he would not treat it to be a case of suppression of a material fact. This would obviously mean that the observations by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 26 concerning applicability of the decision of the Division Bench reported as 2009 (40) PTC 125 F.Hoffmann - LA Roche Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Cipla Ltd. would not be treated as a final opinion that law declared in said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case, for the obvious reason this issue, as noted hereinbefore, would need an adjudication after pleadings are completed.
Delhi High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 65 - M Singh - Full Document

Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation & Anr vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 5 April, 2013

4. The learned Singe Judge has noted various orders in favour of the plaintiffs passed by various Courts in different suits concerning pharmaceutical products having formulation or combination containing Vildagliptin. The learned Single Judge has noted that the pharmaceutical product which appellant intends to market contains formulation Vildagliptin. Law declared in the decision reported as 2013 (54) PTC 452 Merck Sharp and Dohme Cororation & Anr. vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has been noted by the learned Single Judge which holds that a patent formulation cannot be used in combination of other works unless it is shown that the product so obtained is materially different from the way patent product works. The learned Single Judge has noted that the patent granted vide Patent No.212815 in respect of the compound Vildagliptin on December 14, 2007 was effective from October 12, 1998. Therefrom the learned Single Judge has prima facie opined that the application for patent was in public domain and for last 16 years no objections whatsoever were filed by the appellants and only on August 11, 2014 the appellants filed a revocation petition. Therefrom, though not expressly stated, the learned Single Judge has prima facie concluded that the respondents would have a strong prima facie case pertaining to its formulations containing the compound Vildagliptin.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1