Category: IP Litigation

Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys (K&K) along with its IP Asset Management Practice, IIPRD, are happy to announce that they are expanding to Punjab and opening up their new branch Office in Jalandhar,  w.e.f *insert date*, in wake of its growing Intellectual Property (IP) and Commercial Litigation Practice, and with an intent to … Continue reading Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

Read more »

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES UNDER ORDER XIII-A OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

Applicability of order XIII-A of CPC to Intellectual Property Dispute With the objective of streamlining and expediting the disposal of disputes in litigation, the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) came into effect on October 23, 2015.  The Act provides for the … Continue reading SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES UNDER ORDER XIII-A OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

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 »

Khurana & Khurana expands footprint in South East Asia

With business models over the world turning more idea-driven, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are now one of the most valuable assets for any economy. With a significant increase in IPR related activities, South East Asia is developing as a key market for IP Protection and initiating Enforcement actions. Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys … Continue reading Khurana & Khurana expands footprint in South East Asia

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 »

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 »

Parallel Imports

A company sets different price for its products for different countries as per the requirements. Parallel Imports come about when there is a Currency and Tax Difference between two countries as stated above, encouraging people to import products from one country and sell it off in the other country to earn profit (For example: a … Continue reading Parallel Imports

Read more »

Recent Patent Litigation Cases (2014-15): India

Patent Litigation in India has steadily increased over last 2-3 years. Dramatic swift has been observed in the innovator’s perspective from the mere aspect of invention to gaining patent protection for their respective invention. Patent owners have adopted aggressive approach towards their patent protection and enforcing their proprietary rights as businesses, are now well-positioned in … Continue reading Recent Patent Litigation Cases (2014-15): India

Read more »