Dismissed
25 dismissed decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Dismissed Decisions
25 cases | Page 1 of 1
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN414518 and its removal from the Register of Patents. The respondent submitted that the patent in question had already been revoked, which was acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting the grant of a patent application. The Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal, which was accepted by the Respondent.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201617000209). However, the Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal.
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.
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.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed a matter concerning an impugned patent. The respondent (patentee) submitted that the patent, granted in 2019, was due for renewal but the patentee had resolved not to seek renewal and would not exercise its right to revive it. Both parties agreed to this submission.
Suneeta Sharma v.German Plast Industries Private Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Suneeta Sharma's registered design, Design No. 331213-001. Defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking fresh summons and directions for the Controller of Patent and Designs (Defendant No. 2) to produce complete records related to the design registration.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd's suit against Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd., which sought permanent injunction and damages related to trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant had already filed an independent suit (CS(COMM) 460/2020) against the plaintiff on the same grounds of trademark infringement. Citing Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court held that the present suit could not proceed further, allowing the plaintiff to raise all contentions in the existing cross-suit.
Poly Medicure Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Poly Medicure Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order which concluded that its subject patent lacked inventive step. The appellant argued that the subject application claimed improvements over an earlier granted patent (Patent No. 327649) and sought conversion into a patent of addition under Section 54 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court found merit in this submission.
M/S Imberatek Llc v.Apple Inc & Anr.
M/S Imberatek Llc filed a commercial suit alleging patent infringement against Apple Inc. Initially, the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit to explore mediation, and the court allowed it with a refund of court fees. However, subsequent consideration found that since no urgent interim relief was sought, the plaintiff could not circumvent the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Colgate-Palmolive Company v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Colgate-Palmolive Company appealed the refusal of its national phase patent application (4411/DELNP/2007) for 'An Oral Composition'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). However, due to the Appellant's failure to appear despite repeated notices, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its divisional patent application (8584/DELNP/2007). The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. However, the court disposed of the appeal because the term of the parent patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc appealed the refusal of a patent application for 'Prevention of HIV- Infection with TMC278' by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability due to mere admixture. However, the appellant subsequently decided to withdraw the present appeal.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (1519/DELNP/2005) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by the Delhi High Court because the life term of the patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
Business Objects Software Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Business Objects Software Limited filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its patent application (No. 7583/CHENP/2011). The Appellant subsequently sought permission to withdraw this appeal to file it before the High Court of Madras. The court dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn.
United Breweries Limited v.Rajesh Kumar Kohli And Anr
United Breweries Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the 'KINGFISHER' mark registered by Rajesh Kumar Kohli, arguing exclusive association with its brand. However, due to the Petitioner's repeated failure to appear before the court, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. This case highlights the procedural requirements in trademark litigation and the importance of consistent representation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patants And Designs
Microsoft Corporation filed an application seeking discharge of its advocates. It was stated that Microsoft had assigned the subject Patent Application no. 84/DEL/2005 to Zhigu Holdings Limited in 2017, and since the matter transferred from IPAB, there has been no communication with the assignee.
Aska Equipments Private Limited v.Ramanlal Kishandas Kothari & Ors.
The appellant, Aska Equipments Private Limited, sought to withdraw its appeal and related applications. The counsel requested liberty to file an application seeking revocation of a patent in the Trial Court, which could then be transferred to the High Court under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Hitesh Ghanshyamdas Shah & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition filed by the Petitioner alleging non-compliance with a prior court decree, specifically concerning Trademark application No. 1865799. While the parties initially debated the status of the cancellation request before the Registry, both sides ultimately agreed on a path forward. The Court clarified that the Petitioner was free to approach the Registrar directly for cancellation based on the existing decree and correspondence, leading the Petitioner to withdraw the petition.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc, seeking permanent injunction and declarations that the defendant's legal threats regarding trademarks and architectural design were unjustifiable. The plaintiffs also claimed damages for alleged infringement. However, since the defendant had already initiated a counter-suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement, the court found the current claims infructuous. Consequently, the suit was disposed of without prejudice to the pending litigation.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Competition Commission Of India
Vifor International Ltd. challenged the orders of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which initiated an inquiry into its licensing practices regarding the patent for Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM). Vifor argued that the CCI was exceeding its jurisdiction by seeking commercially sensitive information related to a patented product, touching upon rights under the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it premature and noting that the CCI would consider the petitioner's objections.
Pfizer Products Inc v.D Rawal
The contempt petition was filed by Pfizer Products Inc alleging non-compliance with a previous court order. The respondent submitted an affidavit stating that they had applied to the DCGI for permission to manufacture and market the new drug, Tofacitinib, under New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules, 2019. They undertook not to commercialize the product until the patent expiry date.
Mitsubishi Power Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mitsubishi Power Ltd appealed against the rejection of its patent application by The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of the stay application (I.A. 11537/2021), noting that since the patent had been rejected, no interim order could be granted.
Medal Electronics Private Limited v.M/S Goldmedal Electricals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Medal Electronics challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted against them in a trademark dispute. Despite arguments regarding prior use and alleged acquiescence, the appellants chose to withdraw their appeal. The court dismissed the appeal but granted liberty for the appellants to file appropriate applications before the Trial Court, urging the lower court to expedite the decision on the interim injunction application.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Union Of India & Ors.
Novo Nordisk A/S filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent Authorities (No. 1 through No. 3) to decide on its request for the cross-examination of witnesses in a pending post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The court, after considering arguments from both sides, directed that Respondent No. 2 fix the date for the cross-examination and complete it expeditiously.
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.