Outcome Category

Defendant Favorable

at Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)

4 defendant favorable decisions from Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana).

Defendant Favorable Decisions

4 cases | Page 1 of 1

patent defendant favorable · Jul 10, 2013

Reliability Engineering Industries v.Aesseal India Private Limited

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · C.M.A.Nos.323 of 2013 and batch

The appeal arose from interlocutory applications filed regarding the alleged theft and misuse of proprietary rights, technical know-how, and confidential information related to mechanical seals. The plaintiffs sought various injunctions against defendants who were allegedly using their designs and trade secrets.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 3, 2006

Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited v.United Phosphorus Limited And Anr.

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · O.P. No. 1/2005

The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking revocation and interim suspension of Patent No. 185229. The respondent argued that since a related suit was already pending before the District Court, Indore, and a restraint order had been obtained there, conflicting orders could not be passed. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim suspension.

copyright defendant favorable · Aug 20, 1980

Pillalamarri Lakshmikantham And Ors. v.Ramakrishna Pictures And Ors.

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · L. P. A. No. 151 of 1977, L. P. A. No. 221 of 1977 (related to A. S. No. 368 of 1973)

The Publishers sued Ramakrishna Pictures for infringing their copyright in the book 'Tara-sasankam', which was adapted into a film. The trial court found in favor of the publishers, granting injunction and awarding damages. Subsequent appeals were filed by the publishers seeking accounts of profits, but the High Court dismissed these appeals based on established legal principles that preclude claiming both damages and accounts.

trademark defendant favorable · Aug 5, 1960

Mohd. Abdul Kereem v.M. Agaiah

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · L.P.A. No. 83 of 1959

The dispute originated from a trade mark infringement suit where the plaintiff's case was dismissed for default. The plaintiff sought review, which the trial judge allowed. The defendant appealed this decision to the High Court. The court ultimately held that an appeal against a review order granted on grounds outside the scope of Order 47 is incompetent.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →