Pending
328 pending decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Pending Decisions
328 cases | Page 9 of 11
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed several counter claims filed by counterclaimants seeking the revocation of four specific Indian patents (IN 259932, IN 269929, IN 321300, and IN 300066). The order directed that the counter claims be numbered, notice issued, and written statements filed.
Immunovative Therapies Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents
Immunovative Therapies Ltd. appealed a rejection order dated December 4, 2018, concerning its patent application for 'TH1 VACCINATION PRIMING FOR ACTIVE IMMUNOTHERAPY'. The appellant argued that the rejection based on Section 3(d) and (i) was incorrect, as the invention relates to therapeutic vaccine methods using allogeneic CD3/CD28 cross-linked Thl memory cells.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its Indian Patent Application No. 1435/DELNP/2012. The application, which relates to a co-crystal formulation of Tramadol and Celecoxib, was rejected for lacking novelty and inventive step under Section 3(d) and (e).
Cellresearch Corporation Pte Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges an order rejecting Cellresearch Corporation's divisional patent application (No. 10875/DELNP/2013) based on lack of distinct invention from its parent application (No. 1492/DELNP/2007). The appellant argues that the rejection is invalid because the objections raised in the parent application had already been complied with.
Yang, Liping v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Yang, Liping appealed an order dated November 18, 2013, which refused his Indian Patent Application (No. 2769/DELNEP/2004). The refusal was based on the patent not meeting Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970. The court issued directions for service and filing of replies to proceed with the appeal.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents that refused its Indian Patent Application (No. 5429/DELNP/2007) under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the cited prior art did not disclose the claimed invention.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter And Gamble Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5444/DELNP/2007). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, citing prior art that showed individual ingredients. P&G argued that the cited art did not disclose the invention as a composition thereof.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. v.Controller Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed against an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its Indian Patent Application No. 10246/DELNP/2012. The rejection was based on Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued directions for filing replies and further pleadings.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt Ltd v.Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
The petitioner sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. 301322 (Impugned Patent) registered in favour of Respondents No. 1 and 2, arguing that it was liable to be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption for filing annexures and directed notice to be issued to the respondents.
Immersion Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Immersion Corporation, filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff through their manufacture and sale of mobile handsets. The court allowed procedural applications regarding document submission and exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application for 'Hygiene Wash' by the Joint Controller. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on insufficiency of disclosure (Section 10(4)), was violative of natural justice as no objection was raised at earlier stages. The court directed re-notification to hear the matter further.
Greaves Electric Mobility Private Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors
The petitioner, Greaves Electric Mobility Private Limited, filed a case against The Controller of Patents. The respondent argued that the Controller was not a necessary or proper party to the revocation petition, relying on Section 64(5) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which found that her patent application lacked inventive step based on cited prior arts D1-D3. The appellant argued that the decision was non-reasoned, leading to a request for remand.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design's order dated February 27, 2020, which refused to register Indian Patent Application No. 9486/DELNP/2007 for a system and method related to wearable electronic devices.
Allergan Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Allergan Inc appealed an impugned order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the order was unreasoned and challenged the decision regarding voluntary amendments made to the patent application. The court reserved the matter for further submissions.
Zephyr Biomedicals v.Lalit Mahajan And Anr
Zephyr Biomedicals filed a post-grant opposition against Patent No. 224469. The court addressed procedural issues regarding the patentee's non-response and the subsequent service of notice after the abolition of the IPAB, allowing the patentee to file a reply.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its application for patent (No. 3304/DEL/2005). The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits patents for computer programs. Microsoft argued that the reliance on outdated guidelines was incorrect and cited prior court views supporting patentability.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Design regarding its patent application for a composition comprising DGLA. The initial objection was related to Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, which Nestle addressed by amending the claims. However, the subsequent amendment was rejected under Section 59 on grounds of expanding the original claim scope.
Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design
Comviva Technologies Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201611000234) on grounds of ineligibility under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the invention was a technical advancement with practical implementation and should be granted a patent.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistance Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and falling under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Act. The court released the matter from part heard due to heavy board load.
Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v.Dalas Biotech Limited
The dispute involves a claim of infringement regarding a process patent for manufacturing Amoxicillin Trihydrate. The Plaintiffs sought to implead the Drug Controller General of India, arguing the Defendant failed to prove their process was different from the patented process. The Defendant countered that the Plaintiff was exceeding the scope and had not demonstrated product identity.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc filed an appeal challenging the order dated July 22, 2019, by The Controller of Patents. This order rejected the application for grant of a patent under various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file submissions and pleadings.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon their Indian Patent (IN 296857) related to piston compressor crankcases. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, setting out procedural directions for filing written statements and addressing various interlocutory applications.
Alpa Laboratories Limited v.Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.
The petitioner, Alpa Laboratories Limited, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent IN '231479. The petitioner argued that although the patent was revoked by the Deputy Controller of Patents on December 1, 2020, an appeal had stayed this revocation order. The court issued notice and directed parties to file submissions.
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v.The Controller Of Patents And Anr
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application no. 4805/DELNP/2007 by the Controller of Patents and Anr. The application was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)) and insufficient disclosure (Section 10) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed an order dated July 31, 2019, wherein its application for grant of a patent was rejected. The court issued notice to the respondent and directed both parties to file written submissions within specified timelines.
NEC Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
NEC Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201717010986) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subsequently listing the case for further hearing.
Bibimoney Global Ltd. v.Taisys Technologies Ltd. And Ors.
The parties requested time to file written submissions regarding the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court concerning patent revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court listed the matter for further hearing.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application titled "HYGIENE WASH". The rejection was based on insufficient disclosure under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed several interlocutory applications and listed the matter for further hearing.
Scipharm Sarl v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Scipharm Sarl appealed a decision made by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing the grant of a patent application titled 'Novel Composition for the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis'. The case was transferred from the IPAB to the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
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.