Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.48 seconds)

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation & Anr. vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 7 October, 2015

233. It is only when they have been "caught in the act", as it were, that the infringer defendants, unable to dispute the charge of infringement on facts, seek to question the validity of the suit patent. While Section 64, undoubtedly, allow them to do so, the challenge has to be credible, not incredible. The defendants, in the present case, neither launched any pre-grant nor any post-grant, opposition to IN Signature Not Verified 33 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, (2015) 63 PTC 257 (Del-DB) Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR FAO (COMM) 114/2024 Page 25 of 35 Signing Date:14.07.2025 13:08:53
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 31 - A K Pathak - Full Document

Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries on 13 December, 1978

28. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, even while accepting that the impugned order may not be as reasoned as such orders ordinarily ought to be, submits that the learned Commercial Court could not be said to have been in error in holding that the initial onus to establish that the suit patent IN'417 was an improvement over the earlier patent held by the appellant was on the appellant. He submits that, once the appellant had, in its plaint and in the complete specifications of the suit patents IN'417, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR FAO (COMM) 114/2024 Page 16 of 35 Signing Date:14.07.2025 13:08:53 specifically pleaded that it was an improvement over earlier prior arts, the onus to prove that it was an improvement was on the appellant. He relies, in this context, on the following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries20:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 58 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next