2020 is beyond question or hesitation, a year like no other that the planet has seen. The effects of coronavirus can be seen on legal judgments as well. Besides, the pandemic has on an unprecedented scale prompted a global economic shutdown.
In the legal industry, while managing their dockets, the courts have struggled to adjust to the new normal. While court rulings may have slowed down, many national high courts have seen some major patent decisions take place in the first half of this calendar year, establishing an important precedent for legal practitioners.
This article enumerates 20 landmark judgments of 2020.
A. International Rulings
1. Generics (UK) v. Competition and Markets Authority 
A decision was delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 30 January in Generics (UK) Ltd. v. Competition and Markets Authority. The EU Supreme Court read Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaties on the Operation of the European Union (TFEU) and ruled that under the terms of the TFEU, arbitration arrangements between pharmaceutical patent owners and generic drug producers constitute a misuse of a dominant role.
Patent settlements dubbed “pay-to-delay” have raised a lot of tension in the multinational pharmaceutical market when health activists have protested such agreements for hindering the ability of the public to affordable, generic forms of drugs. The cost of producing a single new drug, on the other hand, will stretch into billions of dollars.
For a generic, such settlements often require a carefully agreed market launch date that helps a branded pharmaceutical developer to reclaim an investment without hurting the public interest. Owing to lawsuits under the Prescription Market Competition and Patent Term Restoration (Hatch-Waxman Act, enacted in 1984 to streamline generic approvals while maintaining benefits for R&D pharmaceutical corporations, these agreements are a fairly frequent phenomenon in the U.S.
2. Thryv v. Click-to-Call Technologies 
Decided on April 20, 2020
Quorum – Justice Ginsburg
On 20 April, the U.S. In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technology, LP, the Supreme Court released a greatly awaited opinion within the U.S. patent community because of its effect on the availability of judicial oversight for institutional actions in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s patent validity challenges (PTAB). The Supreme Court held that judicial review of judgments of the PTAB establishment is not possible pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 314(d), which specifies that decisions to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB would be final and non-appealable.
The ban of PTAB institution appeals in the form of a specific IPR instituted in violation of a one-year period bar in 35 U.S.C. Section 314(d) was at issue in Thryv. § 315 USC (b). Although Thryv contains the time bar of Section 315(b), industry analysts challenged whether, notwithstanding any constitutional breaches incurred by instituting such examinations, the decision effectively forecloses on any judicial oversight of PTAB institution decisions. Despite the value of the PTAB as an alternative forum for the award of patent validity, the decision seems to favour petitioners over patent owners who even though they seem to have been unfairly issued, do not have the right to challenge institutions.
3. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Kymab 
Decided on 24 June 2020
Quorum – Lord Reed, President Lord Hodge Lady Black Lord Briggs Lord Sales
On 24 June, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom released a decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Kymab Ltd.: the highest court of the United Kingdom lodged an appeal against the validity of Regeneron patent claims for failure to comply with the provision of adequacy in the United Kingdom’s authorising patent law. The court ruled that a patent proprietor could not claim patent rights if, at the time of the priority date of the patent, a product could not have been adequately approved because of the technological developments that had taken place before the priority date.
In this case, Kymab argued that the patent claims of Regeneron covering the structure of a mouse-human hybrid antibody gene for implantation in mice were not adequately allowed by the priority date to cover the use of that structure for immunological genetic enhancements established after the invention of Regeneron. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the arguments of Regeneron after determining that the restriction of the patentee to products which could have been immediately created by the invention arbitrarily deprived the patentee of the compensation for the potential products from the implementation of the invention.
4. Nike v. Adidas 
Decided on April 9, 2020
Quorum – Before Lourie, Chen, And Stoll, Circuit Judges
Although the Supreme Court is the most powerful U.S. judicial tribunal, this court has largely passed on the granting of recent certiorari petitions to take up this year’s patent cases. This left the U.S. As the most important court for reading U.S. patent law during the first half of 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. For example, while the Thryv decision of the Supreme Court declared that PTAB institution judgments were non-appealable for challenges relating to the one-year time bar of Section 315(b), the Federal Circuit played a very important role in extending the decision issued this Can through decisions such as ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC.
In fact, numerous rulings were released by the Federal Circuit on the procedural aspects of the patent validity trials carried out at the PTAB. On April 9, in Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, the Federal Circuit released a ruling holding that the PTAB could sua sponte, without relying on any patentability issues posed by a plaintiff challenging the claims of a patent. While the PTAB’s discretion in denying new revised charges was supported by the Federal Circuit, this particular case was vacated and remanded. The PTAB was necessary to provide notice of its decision and to provide patent owners with an opportunity to respond.
5. MTG v. Five Stars 
Decided on February 28, 2020
Quorum – Judge Takabe
On February 28, the Grand Panel of Japan’s Intellectual Property High Court issued a ruling in MTG Co., Ltd. v. Five Stars Co. Ltd. There, Japan’s highest IP court increased the damages award to the patent owner proving infringement using a new calculation model based on lost profits. In providing for damages in situations where exact monetary amounts are difficult to calculate, Japan’s Patent Act allows courts to use the number of infringing products sold multiplied by the price paid by consumers for the infringing product.
While the lower court held that the product price only covered the portion of the product’s value contributed by the patented invention, the IPHC Grand Panel increased the potential damages award available to patent owners. It ruled that the damages calculation should consider the entire profits lost per sale and not just the portion attributable to the invention.
B. Indian Landmark Patent Precedents, 2020
6. Dhaval Diyora v. Union Of India And Ors 
Decided on 5 November 2020 by Bombay High Court
Quorum: Nitin Jamdar, Milind N. Jadhav
In this case, the Bombay High Court dealt with the question of whether it was possible to file a pre-grant representation while the decision of the Controller of Patents to reject a patent application is on appeal before the IPAB. The Case established that when the ruling of the controller is on appeal, pre-grant representation cannot be filed since the time period for filing a patent application comes to an end after the controller has reached a decision on the patent application.
While holding this the Court pointed out that the object of pre-grant representations is to assist the controller and that they must be determined at the same time as the review. The Court pointed out in the case that once a decision to grant or deny is taken, the act of sealing is merely a ministerial act and has no effect on the timetable for the filing of pre-grant representations. It also came down hard on benami patent opponents and levied a fine against the opponent in the case of 25 thousand rupees.
7. Interdigital Technology v Xiaomi Corporation & Ors. 
Decided on 9 October 2020 by Delhi High Court
Quorum – Justice C. Hari Shankar
In this case, involving Standard Essential Patents related to 3G and 4G technology, the Court ordered an ad hoc injunction in favour of the Anti-Suit Injunction Application brought by Xiaomi against the Wuhan Court’s ruling. The Court held that the order of the Wuhan Court cannot conflict with the implementation of patent rights relating to Indian patents, which can only be exercised before the Indian Courts.
In a lawsuit for fixing royalty rates, in favour of Xiaomi, the Wuhan Court issued an Anti-Suit Injunction barring Interdigital from bringing patent infringement suits related to SEPs which are part of the Wuhan case. Although issuing an ad hoc injunction, the Court also ruled that the Wuhan Court has no authority in India to proscribe violation charges and that the cases before the courts varied from one another. It claimed that the values of the Committee relating to international decisions would conform with local laws, public policy and justice.
8. Astrazeneca Ab & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. 
Decided on 23 July 2020 by Delhi High Court
Quorum – Justice Jayanth Nath
In the case at issue, Astra Zeneca asked that a clause of the order issued by the Patent Controller be quashed in respect to its patent relating to the DAPAGLIFLOZIN compound used for the treatment of diabetes. As follows, the relevant paragraph 10 reads:
With regard to the Representative’s argument that there was no publication in the Office Journal dated 31/07/2009 of the grant of patent 43(2), I submit that there seems to be an inadvertent mistake in the absence of publication of the grant of the said patent. I hereby order that this be promptly rectified. The division concerned shall publish the award of patent 43(2) to the Patent Office within 15 days of the date of this order. And all the interests and claims of every individual under the grant and grant notice would be regulated by the statute.
The Court preserved the functioning of the paragraph in the light of the fact that the publication of the patent after 11 years in particular after the award of the patent was revised on the website of the patent office, could not be fair for Astra Zeneca unless the case and its complexities are properly investigated. Consequently, it posted the case for further hearing. Allowing the patent to be issued would have opened the door to post-grant resistance, which would have been counterproductive to Astra Zeneca’s interests.
9. Natco Pharma Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. 
Decided on 1 July 2020
Quorum – Debangsu Basak, J
In that case, relating to a pharmaceutical patent, the Court set aside the objection relating to IPAB’s hearing of an application to cancel the patent on the basis that it had not named an appropriate technical member. It claimed that, based on the doctrine of necessity as applied in the Mylan case, the IPAB could continue with the hearing. The Court quoted, as follows, the related paragraphs of the Mylan case:
“9. First, I will see the findings of this court’s Co-ordinate Bench in Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India. Paras Related read as follows:
“35. This court holds the opinion that in the present situation, the doctrine of necessity must be invoked. The statutory aim is to preserve the continuity of the IPAB and not to abolish it due to a vacancy in its professional membership. If the Technical Member’s place is empty, IPAB could continue to hear urgent matters and because of the absence of Coram, the orders passed will not be invalid.
Applying the doctrine of necessity, the Court finds that the Chairman, the IPAB and the Technical Member (Protection of Plant Varieties) have authority to hear urgent matters relating to trademarks and copyright before the vacancies of other Technical Members have been filled and the orders given are not void on the basis that Coram is absent.
If for some reason, the Technical Member (Plant Varieties Protection) is not available or declines to do so the Chairman of the IPAB can continue to hear urgent matters.
IPAB is free to take the expert opinion of a technical advisor from a panel of scientific advisors notified pursuant to Section 115 of the Patents Act in respect of patent matters.
To ensure the consistency of the functioning of the IPAB, the Chairman of the IPAB shall ensure compliance with these directives.
10. Intellectual Property Attorneys … v. The Controller General Of …
Decided on 11 May 2020 by Delhi High Court
Quorum – MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
In the present case, the High Court of Delhi explained that the Supreme Court’s decision on limits and schedules relating to trials, filings and compensation settlements before the courts, tribunals and agencies will not extend to intellectual property matters. The Court announced that as of 15 March 2020, restrictions would be eliminated and deadlines extended. Before the Supreme Court ruled otherwise the time period for prosecution and protection related to limits was extended in the event.
11. CDE Asia Limited v. Jaideep Shekhar & Anr 
Quorum – MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
Decided on 24 February 2020 by Delhi High Court
In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff brought an infringement claim charging that the Defendants infringed their patent and specification relating to the “System Device Process for Classification of Different Materials.” In addition, the Defendants filed an appeal to reject the lawsuit pursuant to Order VII Rules 10 and 11, arguing that the litigation was not maintainable on the basis of the post-grant opposition lodged by the Defendants.
The Court rejected the application, arguing that the action should be upheld even though an opposition had been lodged on the basis that patent rights started on the date of grant and that the defendants had business activities in Delhi. In the case, the Court has found out that the Defendants do not have the option of concurrently seeking opposition and counterclaim for revocation unless they are alternate remedies at the discretion of the Defendants.
12. Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings v Natco Pharma 
Decided on 23 January 2020, by Delhi High Court
Quorum – Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
In this case, the defendant, NATCO Pharma, filed an interim application for a stay of prosecution pursuant to Section 10 of the CPC, as it had previously filed an action in Hyderabad against the complainant, Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings. The lawsuit brought by the defendant in Hyderabad was called, inter alia, for a declaration of non-infringement of the patent of the appellant and an injunction restricting groundless attacks. Following the defendant’s complaint in Hyderabad, the appellant lodged a lawsuit before the Delhi High Court for patent infringement against the defendant, which the defendant claimed must be stayed.
After hearing the parties, the Court held that it was not appropriate to stay the suit before the Delhi High Court because the remedies sought by the complainant in the Hyderabad suit were not based on the Patents Act, but on the Relevant Relief Act. The Court also found out that the Hyderabad Court cannot determine the declaration of invalidity claimed by the defendant. The Court rejected the provisional appeal, arguing that the defendant’s suit was a misuse of process and was filed with an ulterior motive.
13. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings v. BDR Pharmaceuticals 
Decided on: 30th January 2020 by Delhi High Court
Quorum – Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta and Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral)
In the present case, the Court issued the plaintiff an interim injunction against the defendant, noting that the defendant has no prima facie case for the termination of the patent in suit. In the lawsuit, the patent applied to “Lactam-Containing Compounds and Derivatives as Inhibitors of Factor Xa.”
In the case, the defendant objected that the discovery was clear on the basis of a mixture of prior arts and that under Section 3, the invention did not pass the effectiveness pattern (d). After examining the prior art, the Court declared that the references to the technology at issue were distinct, making the invention non-obvious. As per the Court, without hind-sight examination, a person with ordinary skills will not arrive at the innovation, which is not permissible. With regard to Section 3(d), the Court noted that the fact that the product had been put on the market after the filing of the patent itself demonstrated effectiveness.
Paragraph 36 of the decision, which outlines the premises of some essential inventive steps, reads as follows:
“36. Some of the rules guiding the field to determine whether or not an invention is obvious can be summarised from the decisions as noted above as follows: –
(i) It is important to prevent retrospective reconstruction by using the patent in question as a guide through the labyrinth of prior art sources in the proper manner to obtain the outcome of the argument in the suit.
(ii) The identification of a lead compound based on its promising useful properties and not a hindsight-driven quest for structurally related compounds must be shown by the patent challenger.
(iii) Doctrines other than the patent in question should not be found in the prior art.
(iv) Structural similarity alone cannot constitute the basis for the selection of a lead compound in the prior art and structural similarity in the prior art document must provide explanations or reasons for the composition of the assertion.
(v) Whilst it is possible to carry out a mosaic of prior art documents in order to assert obviousness, the group arguing obviousness must, however, be able to show not just the nature of the prior art but how the person of ordinary ability in the art may have been guided to incorporate the related components of the mosaic of prior art.
(vi) It must be borne in mind that minor structural variations can have unforeseen pharmacological consequences and thus, structural similarity alone is not adequate to inspire lead compound selection.
(vii) While it would be tempting to bring together a mixture of prior arts, this involves a great degree of retrospect, both in the collection of appropriate disclosures from these texts and in disregarding the lessons in them that are obsolete or unhelpful.”
14. Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited And Ors 
Decided on 15 January 2020 by Delhi High Court.
Quorum – Ms Justice Mukta Gupta
This case concerned patents for a prescription compound called TICAGRELOR, which is used for Acute Coronary Syndrome as an oral antiplatelet medication. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction, which was opposed exclusively by the Defendants on grounds of invalidity dependent on patentability. They claimed that the disclosure by the Markush argument of the compound in the genus patent precluded its patentability by the patent in a suit of the species.
The Court denied the case by arguing that a Markush assertion in a patent would not render unpatentable a subsequent patent citing one of the compounds of Markush. Although the compound in question was introduced after the species patent in suit had been filed, the Court found out that its patentability was not impaired by the genus patent. It also relied on US lawsuits to arrive at the said conclusion and other content. However, although the patent had expired, the Court declined to issue the temporary injunction. The Court asked the defendants to hold accounts until the expiry date of the patent.
15. Novartis AG and Another v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 
Delhi High Court [February 20, 2020]
Quorum – Ms Justice Mukta Gupta
The Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiffs’ patent in the product compound “NILOTINIB”. In arriving at this decision, the Court noted that the Plaintiffs were the owner of the suit patent, and the launch of a drug in such case would result in an infringement of the patent. The Court also noted that all the three elements for the grant of an injunction had been made out by the Plaintiffs.
16. Roche Products (India) Private Limited and Others v. Cadila Healthcare Limited and Others 
Delhi High Court [February 24, 2020]
Quorum – Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
The conflict between the parties emerged because of the supposed violation of the patent of the Plaintiffs by the Defendants in ‘TRASTUZUMAB.’ In that regard, the primary issue before the Court concerns the maintenance of the proceeding on the basis that the sanction issued by the DCGI and the DoB was appealable according to Rule 122DC of the Narcotics Laws.
This clause was accompanied by elaborate discussions, and the Court acknowledged that the current provisions under the Rules on Drugs specifically limited the people to which the appeal was made available. The Court then ruled that the Plaintiffs should not appeal because it was limited only to the “applicant who is aggrieved.” The Court held that in the light of the deletion of the provision of appeal pursuant to Rule 122DC itself the opposition to the maintenance of the suit has been inapplicable.
17. Lupin Limited v. Union of India and Others 
Delhi High Court [February 27, 2020]
Quorum – Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru
A product patent relating to a drug was issued to the applicant, but the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (‘NPPA’) claimed that it had not applied for an exception pursuant to Para. 32(i) of the revised Decree for Drug Price Control Order, 2013. In that regard, the Court noted that the primary issue before it was whether prior approval of the NPPA had been sought prior to the launch of the drug or whether mere intimation of the NPPA had been appropriate. The Court gave the NPPA time to present its position in order to decide this issue, adding that no punitive action should be taken against the applicant in the meantime.
18. Bayer Corporation v Union of India 
Decided on 26 June 2020
Delhi High Court
Quorum – Mr Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva. Mr Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
The Delhi High Court’s divisional bench ruled that the sale for scientific purposes of a patented invention was not protected by section 107A of the Patents Act and thus did not constitute a violation of the patent. The division bench held that under section 107A of the Act, the selling, use and development of proprietary goods was allowed and lawful for purposes both within the country and abroad.
The decision affirmed that the basis for deciding whether it comes beyond the meaning of section 107A is the final use and the intent of the export. Furthermore, in the past few years, the non-functioning of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has become a major problem, primarily because of the empty vacancies of professional members, whose presence is compulsory for IP cases to be adjudicated. The court ruled in July 2019 that the “doctrine of necessity” had to be invoked in the case in response to a written petition submitted in the case of Mylan Laboratories.
The IPAB can continue to hear urgent matters if the role of a technical member is vacant, and the orders given shall not be null on the ground of lack of a quorum. In addition, the court required the chairman of the IPAB, who was likely to retire from office in September 2019, to continue to hold office until a new chairman was chosen.
Later, the government declared the selection of technical representatives for patents, trademarks and copyrights by an order dated 21 July 2020. While the IPAB has already begun to clear the backlog of proceedings, given that the IPAB is now completely working, we should expect the disposals to be much faster, providing the stakeholders with the appropriate relief.
19. Shogun Organics Ltd v. Gaur Hari Guchhait
In August 2019, Delhi High Court passed another landmark judgment in Shogun Organics Ltd v Gaur Hari Guchhait, Where it has been held that previous disclosure of the technology during the preparatory steps taken to introduce a device, such as disclosure to the government, cannot be held to constitute disclosure for the purpose of anticipation, unless and unless that disclosure is explicitly made publicly accessible.
The High Court also held that submission, not only by the patentee but by any other person, to a government agency or any other jurisdiction, does not constitute prior disclosure. For example, in the field of pharmaceuticals, this decision allowed the applicants to comply with the required government legislation, without fear of excessive exposure of their innovations.
In September 2019, model guidelines on the implementation of IPR policy for academic institutions were published by the Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM). These guidelines refer to all IPs that have been developed at an academic institution since the date of application of these guidelines. The rules shed light on IP ownership and the commercialization and benefit-sharing created by IP.
The guidelines have also suggested a model of use for an academic institution’s IP-generated revenues. In the event of any conflict between two sides, the guidelines have suggested a fast-tracked solution by recommending the appointment of a group of experts to discuss the aggrieved person’s concerns (s). In order to motivate all stakeholders of the researcher/academic institution/external partner ecosystem, these guidelines were drawn up, thus ensuring the promotion of innovation and smooth operations.
The changes made to the Patent Law is another major development. To begin with, the provision that original papers be submitted after the submission of electronic copies has been removed. The original paper is now expected to be submitted only if it is requested by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) and those documents are not known to have been filed.
New categories of applicants were also introduced for availing the benefits of the expedited examination. The updated list of categories includes:
- Applications where India is selected as the ISA (international searching authority) or IPEA (international preliminary examining authority) in the corresponding PCT (patent co-operation treaty) application.
- A government-recognized start-up
- A small entity
- A woman applicant
- A government department
- An institution established by a central, provincial or state act, which is owned or controlled by the government
- A government company
- An institution wholly or substantially financed by the government
- For an application pertaining to a sector that has been notified by the central government on the basis of a request from the head of a department of the central government
- A patent prosecution highway (PPH). Further, under the new rules, a PCT applicant will no longer have to pay a transmittal fee to the IPO when filing PCT applications through the e-PCT filing module.
- A bilateral PPH programme between India and Japan was launched in November 2019 by the IPO. This was the first IPO-adapted PPH programme, and on a trial basis, too. The IPO and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) issued the PPH Procedure Instructions on 29 November 2019, specifically detailing the specifics of the application of the PPH Programme.
The specifics included the terms of compliance, the qualifying requirements for applicants to be made available to the facility, the supporting documentation to be submitted along with the request for an expedited review by the PPH, and the processes for all offices to handle those applications. It would not be unfair to expect the IPO to consider setting up a PPH scheme for other jurisdictions in the future, considering the popularity of the pilot PPH project.
In November 2019, another development was the publication of a new Patent Office Practice and Procedure Manual (MPPP), which replaced the earlier 2011 manual. The handbook contained numerous changes made over the years to the Patents Rules 2003 and the extensive digitization of the processes at the IPO.
The manual, for example, gives guidance into the electronic and physical submission of documents and some protocols for the adoption of the Digital Access Service of the World Intellectual Property Organization by the IPO (WIPO-DAS). Although the MPPP does not as such, have any binding effect, it also serves as a guideline for both IPO controllers and patent agents.
20. Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Ors
In December 2019, Delhi High Court passed another landmark judgment, in Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Ors. Referring to the patent application back to the IPO with guidance that, while it might be based on a computer programme, computer-related inventions showing “technical effect” or “technical contribution” are patentable.
Interestingly, on the basis that the innovation lacks creativity, the IPO again dismissed the claim, following which the aggrieved claimant lodged an appeal before the IPAB. Finally, the IPAB granted the patent and held that the objection to novelty and the creative phase of the supposed invention can only be cited on the grounds of the applicable prior art.
The IPAB also held that the technological impact created by the present invention must be appreciated when evaluating the patentability of the subject matter. The very evidence that a computer machine is used to carry out part of the invention in question does not constitute a bar to patentability.
In view of the worldwide covid-19 pandemic and the situation in India, the Supreme Court of India released an order in March 2020 calling for an extension of time limits falling after 15 March 2020 and declared by the Supreme Court until the next date. Since the Covid-19 pandemic has not yet subsided in India, and the Supreme Court has not yet declared a final date for taking advantage of the extension of time limits, all deadlines for the IPO remain postponed for the time being. Therefore, without incurring any official charge, an applicant can file a request to delay the deadline.
While the effect created by Covid-19 is still around, things are steadily returning to normal, such as remotely running the IPO, IPAB, and courts in India. Overcoming the harm caused by the pandemic and maintaining steady growth and development would be the greatest obstacle for the IP ecosystem in India.
 Thryv v. Click-to-Call Technologies, Fed. Cir 18-196.
 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Kymab
 Nike, Inc. v. Adidas, Ag, Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013- 00067.
 MGT v. Five Stars, decied on February 28, 2020
 Dhaval Diyora v. Union Of India And Ors, WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3718 OF 2020.
 Interdigital Technology v. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors., I.A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020.
 Astrazeneca Ab & Anr v. Union of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 4431/2020 & CM APPL. No.15958/2020(stay)
 Natco Pharma Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors , W.P.(C) 3847/2020
 Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 5571/2019 & CM APPL. 24540/2019
 Intellectual Property Attorneys … v. The Controller General Of … ,W.P.(C) No.3059/2020
 CDE Asia Limited v. Jaideep Shekhar & Anr, (CS(COMM) 124/2019).
 Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings v. Natco Pharma, (CS(COMM) 342/2019 & IA No.9768/2019).
 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings v. BDR Pharmaceuticals, (CS(COMM) 27/2020.)
 Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited And Ors, (CS(COMM) 561/2019)
 Novartis AG and Another v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, CS(COMM) 85/2020
 Roche Products (India) Private Limited and Others v. Cadila Healthcare Limited and Others, CS(COMM) 1119/2016, IA No.10019/2016
 Lupin Limited v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) 10917/2018 & CM APPL. No.45389/2018.
 Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, (COMM) 169/2017
 Shogun Organics Ltd v. Gaur Hari Guchhait, CS (COMM) 201/2017
 Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 7/2014 & CM APPL. 40736/2019.