Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.41 seconds)
Novo Nordisk A/S vs Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr on 9 March, 2026 cites

Novartis Ag vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2013

"28. The Defendants have contended that the Semaglutide compound falling under the Suit Patent/IN'697 is not novel since the same compound is claimed/disclosed under the Genus Patent/IN'964, and therefore, applying the principle of Novartis AG v. Union of India, the Plaintiff is barred from appropriating the Signature Not Verified same subject matter claimed in the Genus Patent/IN'964 again in Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR FAO(OS) (COMM) 204/2025 Page 30 of 34 Signing Date:09.03.2026 16:58:32 the subsequent Suit Patent/IN'697. Therefore, the Suit Patent/IN'697 is vulnerable to invalidity under Section 64(1)(a) of the Patents Act. It is contended that claims in the Suit Patent/IN'697 are not novel as they are anticipated by the claims of the Genus Patent/IN'964 and therefore, liable for revocation. It is further contended that the teaching in the Genus Patent/IN'964 sufficiently enables the Semaglutide compound. The Defendants also rely upon the admissions made by the Plaintiff on the scope of the claims in Genus Patent/IN'964 in corresponding patent across various foreign jurisdictions, as well as in Plaintiff's filings before the Indian Patent Office, wherein the Plaintiff has claimed that the Semaglutide compound is the only commercial product that has resulted from both the Genus Patent/IN'964 and the Suit Patent/IN'697.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 45 - A Alam - Full Document

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

11. We sincerely feel that, in such cases, the Court must, apart from addressing itself to the merits of the matter, also consider whether, applying the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, it should interfere. This is especially so as, in Wander Ltd v. Antox (India) Pvt Ltd2 and Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra3, the Supreme Court has clearly held that such appeals are merely appeals on principle, and that the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the Commercial Court, unless they err on principle.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra Trading As J.K. ... on 3 November, 2023

11. We sincerely feel that, in such cases, the Court must, apart from addressing itself to the merits of the matter, also consider whether, applying the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, it should interfere. This is especially so as, in Wander Ltd v. Antox (India) Pvt Ltd2 and Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra3, the Supreme Court has clearly held that such appeals are merely appeals on principle, and that the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the Commercial Court, unless they err on principle.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document
1   2 3 Next