Category: IP Litigation

Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

Upon successful practicing in the area of Intellectual Property (IP) and Commercial Litigation over the decade, Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys together with its IP Asset Management Practice, IIPRD, feels immense pleasure to announce the recent opening of its 8th branch in Jalandhar. With years of helping corporates identify, create, protect, promote and … Continue reading Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

Read more »

Sarine Technologies Ltd v. Divora Bhandari Corporation & Ors

When it comes to one of the most contentious aspects of copyright law in software, two things come to our mind: The idea-expression dichotomy and; Which part of software is copyrightable, and which part is patentable. The present case of Sarine Technologies Ltd. v. Divora Bhandari Corporation &orsunfolds many perplexing facts of the copyright Law. … Continue reading Sarine Technologies Ltd v. Divora Bhandari Corporation & Ors

Read more »

Curious Case of Corporate Viel in Revocation Petition

This case pertains to a suit filed by Galatea Ltd. & Anr (Petitioners), against Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation (Defendants) and thirteen other defendants, for infringing of its patent IN 271425 (suit patent) for a ‘device which eliminates presence of gas bubbles from the immersion medium”. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under … Continue reading Curious Case of Corporate Viel in Revocation Petition

Read more »

Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp. – A case pertaining to Doctrine of Equivalents

On August 02, 2017, the United States Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Applera Corp.and Tropix Inc.in the matter of Enzo Biochem Inc., Enzo Life Sciences Inc., Yale University v. Applera Corp., Tropix Inc. The Court affirmed that the district court accurately interpreted proper construction of claims in U.S. Patent No.5,449,767 … Continue reading Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp. – A case pertaining to Doctrine of Equivalents

Read more »

Can non-compliance of mandatory provisions under the patents act, 1970 land you behind the bars?

Technically YES. The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is a piece of legislation, penalties under which are largely civil in nature, such as fines, award of monetary damages, injunction, loss of patentee rights including compulsory licensing, abandonment of application or revocation of a patent. However, violation of certain provisions, such as … Continue reading Can non-compliance of mandatory provisions under the patents act, 1970 land you behind the bars?

Read more »

Teva held responsible for Induced Infringement of Eli Lilly’s Blockbuster drug ALITMA

In Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.; APP Pharmaceuticals LLC; Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to be as Defendants/Appellants/Teva) Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff/Appelle/Eli Lilly) decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on January 12, 2017, Plaintiff had filed … Continue reading Teva held responsible for Induced Infringement of Eli Lilly’s Blockbuster drug ALITMA

Read more »

PATENT INFRINGMENT SUIT BY DOLBY AGAINST OPPO AND VIVO

Anjana Mohan, an intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys deals with the updates in the Patent Litigation between Dolby International and two Smartphone companies Oppo and Vivo over the patented technology by Dolby. Dolby filed suits vide Suit no CS(COMM) 1425/2016 and CS(COMM) 1426/2016 against various parties including the two major Chinese … Continue reading PATENT INFRINGMENT SUIT BY DOLBY AGAINST OPPO AND VIVO

Read more »

Hetero’s Subsidiaries not infringing Roxane’s patent on PhosLo

In Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to be as “Roxane”) v. Camber Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Camber”) decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 17, 2016, Roxane had appealed against decision of district court in an infringement suit against Camber and Invagen Pharmaceuticals Inc (collectively … Continue reading Hetero’s Subsidiaries not infringing Roxane’s patent on PhosLo

Read more »

Federal Circuit Rules 180-Day Post-Licensure Notice is Mandatory in Biosimilar Litigation

In Amgen v. Apotex (No. 2016-1308), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 5, 2016 affirmed a district court’s ruling that a biosimilar applicant must provide a reference product sponsor with 180 days’ post-licensure notice before commercial marketing of a biosimilar product begins, regardless of whether the applicant provided the § … Continue reading Federal Circuit Rules 180-Day Post-Licensure Notice is Mandatory in Biosimilar Litigation

Read more »

Division Bench of Delhi High Court passed an interim order in Glenmark v. Symed (July 2015)

The High Court of Delhi has passed an interim order wherein the  Justices have made it clear that the appellant (Glenmark) may use any other process which may be a development of Glenmark process / Upjohn process so long as it does not infringe the patented processes of the respondent (Symed). Background: Symed Laboratories Ltd. … Continue reading Division Bench of Delhi High Court passed an interim order in Glenmark v. Symed (July 2015)

Read more »