Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Novartis AG – Appellant
Versus
Centurion Remedies Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. infringement of patent clarified by dop. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defendant claims non-infringement. (Para 8) |
| 3. defendant directed to refrain from commercial activities. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. suit decreed and applications disposed. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent No.233161, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. The details of the said patent are as under:
| Patent No. | : | 233161 |
| Date of filing | : | 21st May, 2003 |
| Date of Expiry | : | 21st May, 2023 |
3. Pursuant to the directions issued vide previous orders dated 20th May, 2022 and 11th May, 2022, the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers (hereinafter as `DOP') has filed an affidavit clarifying its position. As per the said affidavit, for various reasons including for enhancing supply of local manufactured products and for self-sufficiency purposes in the case of medicines, drug and medical devices, certain guidelines were issued by the Government classifying Local Suppliers based on local value addition or local content
The Government's Public Notice regarding local drug manufacturers does not imply authorization to infringe patent rights, clarifying its non-involvement under the Patents Act.
The court ruled that government notices do not confer rights to infringe patents and acknowledged the defendant’s commitment not to engage in infringing activities until patent expiration.
The government notice for local manufacturing does not authorize infringement of patent rights, clarifying its intent under the Patents Act, ensuring that specific claims retain their novelty despite....
Acknowledgment of patent rights by the Defendants and their undertaking not to infringe, permissible use for research and development under Section 107-A of the Patent Act, 1970
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue a permanent injunction against patent infringement based on the Defendant's undertaking and lack of manufacture o....
The court granted a permanent injunction against defendants for using a deceptively similar trademark, affirming the plaintiff's established rights over their well-known trademarks.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
