Latest news with #MiniPushkarna
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Zydus Life's plans for cancer biosimilar hit a legal hurdle
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Mumbai: The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against Ahmedabad-based drug maker Zydus Lifesciences after a case filed by the US pharma giant Bristol Myers Squibb alleging patent infringement on its blockbuster anticancer drug Opdyta nivolumab ) branded as Opdivo in other restraining order comes as a setback for the Indian drug maker which was running clinical trials in India for the launch of the biosimilar versions of nivolumab. The earliest patent for the drug expires in India on May 2, 2026. The next hearing for the case is August 101-page order issued on July 18 by Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled that the defendants, and all others acting on its behalf, are restrained from manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, advertising, or dealing in any biosimilar/similar biologic of nivolumab, the suit patent, during the pendency of the present suit. The order stated the plaintiffs shall suffer irreparable loss, in case the interim relief as prayed for, was not injections are one of the many latest generation immunotherapy drugs also known as checkpoint inhibitors increasingly used to treat several types of cancers including skin, lungs, kidneys, and Hodgkin lymphoma. It works by activating the body's T-cells or immune cells by targeting a protein called PD-1, thereby unleashing an attack on the cancer vials are sold in India for roughly '2 lakh but for patients who are part of the company's assistance or access programs, the drug is available at a slab-wise discounted the India data is not available, globally Bristol Myers Squibb recorded Opdivo sales of $9.3 billion in 2024. Indian companies have launched biosimilars at half the cost of those charged by their global in Indian patent laws told ET that the court has taken a view that stockpiling of a product during its active patent life amounts to infringement and to release it or flood the market is not legally valid."This opinion may have implications for the other ongoing disputes like the weight-loss drug semaglutide (branded Wegovy) case between Novo Nordisk and Dr. Reddy's Labs or Roche versus Natco for Risdiplam (drug used for a rare disease called spinal muscular atrophy or SMA) case," a senior lawyer petition from BMS noted that Zydus Lifesciences was conducting clinical trials for nivolumab and on its investigation found that the company had plans to launch it during the patent period. The Indian company, it said, had applied for a marketing approval with the central drug regulatory its part, lawyers on behalf of Zydus defended saying its product ZRC-3276 does not infringe upon the existing patents and is following the regulatory was represented by a battery of top lawyers including Harish Salve, Dushyant Dave, and Rajiv Nayar, while Squibb & Sons was represented by Sandeep Sethi, PS Raman, Amit Sibal and Pravin Anand, among others.
The Print
6 days ago
- Business
- The Print
Rs 1 crore damages for ‘blatant infringement': Johnson & Johnson's big win in court against ORS copycats
A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna pointed to confusion among consumers regarding the drinks, saying: 'The present case is a clear example wherein the triple identity test is satisfied. The marks/trade dress of the parties are similar. The areas of operation/business are the same, and the target consumers are also similar.' The court Tuesday penalised the makers of the product ElectroORS and also restrained them from manufacturing deceptively similar drinks and copying the packaging and branding of Johnson & Johnson's electrolyte drink. New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has awarded damages of Rs 1.2 crore to multinational pharma company Johnson & Johnson in an infringement case relating to its trademark ORSL, a brand of electrolyte drinks. The 'triple identity test' looks for three things: whether a set of goods or services are identical to each other; whether the trade channel or customers are identical; and whether the marks are identical. The order noted that Jagdale Industries had first introduced the ORS-L brand by way of flavoured electrolyte drinks in 2003. It came to be known for its apple, lemon and orange flavours. Johnson & Johnson acquired the brand in 2014 and the trademark ORS-L was subsequently changed to ORSL. In 2022, upon finding out that an Andhra Pradesh-based firm, Sree International India, along with another Tamil Nadu-based company, Pure Tropic, had been making products bearing similar trademark and trade dress, Johnson & Johnson approached the high court seeking a permanent or interim injunction that would restrain them from making the product. An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action. It can either be issued temporarily or even permanently, as a final judgment in a case. Essentially, Johnson & Johnson claimed its product's infringement and passing off of its trademarks in this case. Infringement occurs where there is unauthorised use of a registered trademark, whereas passing off refers to misrepresenting one's own goods or services as those of another while infringing on the other's trademark or brand reputation. The defendants in the case at hand used the marks ORSI and ERSI. A core tenet of passing‑off law is that 'a man may not sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man', the Delhi High Court had said in the 1996 case N.R. Dongre And Ors. vs Whirlpool Corporation. Taking note of the defendants' product packaging and finding it similar to Johnson & Johnson's, the court observed Tuesday that they had made 'minor alterations' in the packaging of their product, which increased the likelihood of confusion among the consumers. Relying on its 2014 ruling in Heifer Project International vs. Heifer Project India Trust, the high court said the triple-identity test had been satisfied in this case. It noted that the trademarks were 'nearly identical' along with the areas of operation, and the segments of public they targeted. 'The defendants' use of these nearly identical and deceptively similar marks is certain to cause deception and confusion among the general public,' the court said. The court added that the dress, mark and packaging of the defendants' products would also cause confusion and deception among 'any unwary purchaser', especially since the goods are easily-available as over-the-counter products, and available on e-commerce platforms. 'The present is a case of blatant infringement and passing off,' the court noted, awarding cumulative damages in favour of Johnson & Johnson to the tune of Rs 1,21,56,864. (Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui) Also Read: How Delhi HC defined 'originality', holding AR Rahman & 'PS-2' makers guilty of copyright infringement
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Patanjali Foods up 2% as board to consider bonus shares on July 17
Patanjali Foods shares rose 2.3 per cent on Tuesday, registering an intraday high at ₹1,713.95 per share. At 11:53 AM, Patanjali Foods share price was trading higher by 1.88 per cent at ₹1,706.85 per share on the BSE. In comparison, the BSE Sensex was up 0.45 per cent at 82,624.98. The company's market capitalisation stood at ₹61,874.39 crore. The 52-week high of the stock was at ₹2,030 per share and the 52-week low of the stock was at ₹1,541 per share. Patanjali bonus issue details On Monday, after market hours, the company announced that in a meeting on Thursday, July 17, 2025, the board will mull bonus shares. "We may inform you that a meeting of the board of directors of the company is scheduled to be held on Thursday, July 17, 2025, inter alia to consider a proposal for issue of bonus shares subject to approval of the shareholders of the company," the filing read. A bonus issue (also called a bonus share issue or capitalisation issue) is when a company issues free additional shares to its existing shareholders, based on the number of shares they already hold. Meanwhile, recently, the Delhi High Court passed an interim order directing Patanjali Ayurved to take down advertisements that allegedly disparage Dabur's chyawanprash products. This came in response to a suit filed by Dabur India Ltd in December 2024, accusing Patanjali Ayurved of making misleading claims about its flagship Ayurvedic product. Justice Mini Pushkarna issued the order after finding that the contested advertisements were problematic under the law governing commercial speech and product representation. The case stems from an advertisement featuring Patanjali Ayurved's co-founder Ramdev, who is shown casting doubt on the authenticity of competing Chyawanprash brands. According to the lawsuit, the ad shows that only Patanjali's Chyawanprash is "original", while others are shown as lacking the requisite Ayurvedic and Vedic knowledge to manufacture authentic formulations. About Patanjali Foods Patanjali Foods is a FMCG company that offers a wide range of household essentials. From nourishing foods to home and personal care solutions.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Patanjali Foods climbs 2% as board to consider bonus shares on July 17
Patanjali Foods shares rose 2.3 per cent on Tuesday, registering an intraday high at ₹1,713.95 per share. At 11:53 AM, Patanjali Foods share price was trading higher by 1.88 per cent at ₹1,706.85 per share on the BSE. In comparison, the BSE Sensex was up 0.45 per cent at 82,624.98. The company's market capitalisation stood at ₹61,874.39 crore. The 52-week high of the stock was at ₹2,030 per share and the 52-week low of the stock was at ₹1,541 per share. Patanjali bonus issue details On Monday, after market hours, the company announced that in a meeting on Thursday, July 17, 2025, the board will mull bonus shares. "We may inform you that a meeting of the board of directors of the company is scheduled to be held on Thursday, July 17, 2025, inter alia to consider a proposal for issue of bonus shares subject to approval of the shareholders of the company," the filing read. A bonus issue (also called a bonus share issue or capitalisation issue) is when a company issues free additional shares to its existing shareholders, based on the number of shares they already hold. Meanwhile, recently, the Delhi High Court passed an interim order directing Patanjali Ayurved to take down advertisements that allegedly disparage Dabur's chyawanprash products. This came in response to a suit filed by Dabur India Ltd in December 2024, accusing Patanjali Ayurved of making misleading claims about its flagship Ayurvedic product. Justice Mini Pushkarna issued the order after finding that the contested advertisements were problematic under the law governing commercial speech and product representation. The case stems from an advertisement featuring Patanjali Ayurved's co-founder Ramdev, who is shown casting doubt on the authenticity of competing Chyawanprash brands. According to the lawsuit, the ad shows that only Patanjali's Chyawanprash is "original", while others are shown as lacking the requisite Ayurvedic and Vedic knowledge to manufacture authentic formulations. About Patanjali Foods Patanjali Foods is a FMCG company that offers a wide range of household essentials. From nourishing foods to home and personal care solutions.
Time of India
11-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
HC seeks response on plea challenging clearances for private hospital in GK-I
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Friday sought the stand of various govt authorities on a plea challenging the grant of environmental and other clearances for the construction of a private 400-bed hospital in south Delhi. The petition by the Greater Kailash Residents Association alleges widespread discrepancies in the process followed by authorities in giving their nod to the DLF-Medanta tie-up project, ignoring the strain it will put on the existing civic facilities, including parking spaces, sewage systems, traffic pile-up, and emergency response services in the area. Justice Mini Pushkarna, while issuing notice, refused to stay the ongoing construction but gave four weeks to the DDA, MCD, Delhi Pollution Control Committee, Traffic Police, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi Fire Service, and others. "I am not stopping construction, but you won't claim any special equities," Justice Pushkarna told the counsels for DLF and Medanta Hospital, issuing them notice,.as they objected to any stay on construction. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi The lawyers for the project highlighted they obtained all due approvals and fulfilled every mandatory requirement before proceeding with building the hospital. "There are numerous schools in Vasant Vihar which may cause inconvenience to residents; are these to be closed down? Are good hospitals not needed?" senior advocate Rajiv Nayyar argued by taking an example to defend the project. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Karlsruhe: Nur 700 Plätze. Werden Sie Testhörer für die neuen Hörgeräte ohne Zuzahlung. Gutes Hören Undo Appearing for the residents of GK-I, senior advocate Sacchin Puri contended that the land on which the project is coming up was meant only for public buildings, as per the settlement agreement between DLF and the municipal authorities. "Private hospitals don't qualify as public buildings; this violates the land usage of the property," he alleged, urging the court to restrain the project's construction. The plea also drew the court's attention to the site plan to claim that part of the proposed construction would be in the nature of encroachment on a nallah. It cited the environmental clearance (EC) granted to show that there is a drain merely 0.10 km away from the upcoming hospital. The residents also highlighted that the environmental clearance has not given enough attention to the capability of the MCD to handle waste management, as the certificate was issued without examining if the MCD is competent to handle the waste that will be generated from the project in question. In addition, the petitioners enclosed a traffic impact assessment report that calculated a 64% increase in the movement of traffic in the area due to the hospital once it is functional, indicating the immense congestion it will lead to in the area. "The project carries real-time consequences for the residents of GK-I. The traffic situation in the neighbourhood will be heavily exacerbated due to the project, which is located near Archana Cinema Complex, a commercial centre with various shops and which already leads to constant traffic snarls at the various approaches into the neighbourhood," the petition contends. The plea claims the hospital will cause "increased pollution levels due to increased vehicle input, dumping of solid waste in the nallah, over-congestion of roads leading to logistical inconveniences for residents, patients, and commuters" and urges the HC to quash the EC granted for the project on Oct 18, 2019 and a subsequent all-clear given by the MCD on July 2, 2020.
