Delhi High Court - Orders
2164 cases · page 3 of 73
Showing 61–89F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court heard arguments regarding a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). The court settled several issues, including ownership and potential grounds for revocation. Subsequently, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to expedite evidence recording and constituted a confidentiality club upon application by the Defendant.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd v.Carl Freudenberg Kg & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent no. IN541962 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that a related suit was pending before another judge and directed the matter to be listed before that same bench.
Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited v.The Indian Patent Office & Ors.
The Appellant, Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited, filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202011037218. The current order addresses applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling the said appeal.
Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors.
The plaintiff, Crocs Inc Usa, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Bata India Ltd for infringing its registered design. The suit was previously disposed of after the design registration (No. 197685) was cancelled by the Controller of Patents & Designs due to lack of novelty. The current application seeks costs against the plaintiff.
Hindustan Pesticides Manufacturer Association v.Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. & Anr.
The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to revoke or cancel Indian Patent IN420915, which relates to a Water Soluble Granular Insecticidal Composition. The court issued notices to the respondents and granted time for them to file their replies.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed an application seeking directions for the inspection of heat exchanger plates manufactured by the Defendant and taking on record relevant documents. The Court, relying on Section 115(1) of The Patents Act, appointed a Scientific Advisor to conduct an inspection and provide a detailed report comparing the impugned products with Patent No. 322307.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The suit concerned alleged infringement of Patent No. 229051 by the Defendant regarding Valsartan and Sacubitril products. Since the subject patent IN'051 expired, the parties reached an amicable settlement which was recorded by the court.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking permission to introduce additional public documents and prior arts related to various patents. The Court allowed the application, noting that despite insufficient reasons provided initially, the documents were public domain and highly relevant to the issues in dispute.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking leave to place additional public documents on record. These documents included various patents and ISO standards related to fasteners and coating methods, which were deemed highly relevant for proper adjudication of the issues raised in the Counter Claim.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking permission to introduce additional public documents, which were identified as relevant prior arts pertaining to various patents. The Court allowed the submission of these documents, noting their relevance despite the late filing, subject to payment of costs.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking leave to place additional public documents on record. These documents included various patents and prior arts related to fasteners, washers, and coating methods. The Court allowed the filing of these documents, noting their relevance despite initial procedural delays.
Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Provivi, Inc. challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application based on alleged non-receipt of hearing notices and lack of a reasoned decision. The petitioner argued that it was denied an opportunity to be heard before the refusal order dated 30.05.2023 was passed. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and lacked reasons, setting it aside.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent application number 279/DEL/2015. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of Patent Application IN'563 on grounds of lack of inventive step. The application relates to an air-cooling system for pre-cooling ambient air using a mist of water in an HVAC system. The High Court found the impugned order unreasoned and failed to follow the five steps required for determining obviousness, leading to the remand of the matter.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application (No. 201717022856) due to lack of inventive step. The appellant sought permission to amend its claims, which were subsequently accepted by the High Court provided they did not broaden the scope of the original claims.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 202018041017) by The Controller of Patents. The court first condoned a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and subsequently granted time to both parties for written submissions before listing the matter again.
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd v.The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller's decision refusing its divisional patent application for 'PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF PEMETREXED'. The refusal was based on the prior refusal of the mother application. However, since the mother application was subsequently granted, the High Court found the reason for refusal no longer tenable.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The suit was filed alleging infringement of Patent No. 269841 (IN'841) by Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd regarding the compound Ruxolitinib. After discussions, the Defendant provided an undertaking that they would not commercialize the patented compound during the patent's validity. The court accepted this undertaking and disposed of the suit on consent terms.
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant, Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc., challenged a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The court heard preliminary submissions regarding whether the sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10(4) was complied with and if the rejection order lacked adequate reasons.
Symrise Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Symrise Ag filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 202117041016) for 'An Antimicrobial Mixture', holding that it was not patentable under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd filed a petition before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner submitted that a third-party post grant opposition had led to the revocation of the patent held by the respondents under Section 25(2) read with Section 25(4) of the Patent Act, 1970. Consequently, the court dismissed the present petition as infructuous.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited, filed an affidavit seeking leave from the Delhi High Court to amend its claims in a patent application. The company asserted that the amendments were lawful, bona fide, and did not broaden the original disclosure, but merely provided clarification.
Ashish Padia v.Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging infringement across multiple IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyrights related to 'Bonded Fusion Bowl' and various bowl designs. The court framed several issues regarding infringement, patent revocation, and entitlement to damages.
Koninklijke Kpn N V v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The case involves Koninklijke Kpn N V alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patent (SEP) portfolio by Guangdong Oppo Mobile's WebRTC compliant devices. The court issued several orders regarding procedural matters, including granting extensions, allowing the filing of confidential documents, and setting dates for interim injunction hearings.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Bayer Healthcare Llc filed an appeal seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 1788/DELNP/2007. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the patent term had expired.
Saint Gobain Tm Kk v.Assistant Controller Opf Patents And Designs
Saint Gobain Tm Kk filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order issued by the Assistant Comptroller of Patents and Designs regarding patent application no. 201717018424. The court accepted notice and granted time for the respondent to file written submissions, listing the case for further hearing.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
Largan Precision Co. Ltd filed a suit seeking an interim injunction and disclosure of sales against Motorola Mobility India Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. TN 395095. The court allowed notice to the defendants and listed the matter for further consideration.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in products that infringe their Indian Patent No. 426553, specifically mentioning the brand name NYKRON. The court accepted notice and directed the defendants to file a reply within two weeks.
Natco Pharma Limit v.Novo Nordisk A/S And Ors.
The petitioner, Natco Pharma Limit, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appellant, Kba Notasys Sa, challenged an impugned order issued by the Controller General of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to apply established guidelines for determining inventive step and did not properly assess the invention described in their drawings. The respondent contended that the claimed invention was not patentable as it was covered by existing prior art.
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.