REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Astrazeneca Ab Appellant

V/S

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SURENDRA LAL MAHENDRA V. JAIN GLAZERS [REFERRED TO]
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION V. ONEILL [REFERRED TO]
F. HOFFMANN LA ROCHE LTD. AND ANR. VS. CIPLA LTD. [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH PRASAD RADHEY SHYAM VS. HINDUSTAN METAL INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH PRASAD RADHEY SHYAM VS. HINDUSTAN METAL INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
MONSANTO COMPANY VS. CORAMANDAL INDAG PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STANDIPACK PRIVATE LIMITED VS. OSWAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
F HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD VS. CIPLA LTD [REFERRED TO]
NOVARTIS AG VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TEN XC WIRELESS INC AND ANR. VS. MOBI ANTENNA TECHNOLOGIES (SHENZHEN) CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. AND ORS. VS. CIPLA LTD. [REFERRED TO]
NATCO PHARMA LTD. VS. BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB HOLDINGS IRELAND UNLIMITED COMPANY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Preface: -

(2.) In 147, as per the averments made in the plaint, is the genus patent while IN 625 is claimed to be the species patent. The moot point, which arises for consideration in the instant actions, is: whether the compound-in-issue i.e. Dapagliflozin [in short "DAPA"] which, according to the plaintiffs, is covered in IN 147 stands disclosed both, in law as well as on facts?

(3.) Before I proceed further, the following broad contours of the case are required to be noticed.

Click here to view full judgment.

ASTRAZENECA AB Vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address