Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 4 of 56
Showing 91–119F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed its application for an injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, which was manufacturing and selling Risdiplam. The core dispute centered on whether the species patent (IN 3343971) covering compounds for Spinal Muscular Atrophy was infringed by Risdiplam, or if the claims were obvious based on prior art disclosures in a genus patent (WO'916/US'955).
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'Infrared (IR) Based Quantitation of Biomolecules.' The refusal was based on the grounds that the claimed method constituted an unpatentable diagnostic process under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding that the subject matter did not fall within the scope of this exclusion and that the amendments made were permissible refinements.
Natera Inc And Anr v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natera Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application for 'Methods for Lung Cancer Detection'. The refusal was based on the grounds that the methods were not patentable under Section 3(i) as they related to diagnosis/treatment, and certain claims violated Section 59. The High Court upheld the refusal.
Sequenom Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Sequenom Inc appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant two patent applications related to methylation-based enrichment of fetal nucleic acid for non-invasive prenatal diagnoses. The core issue was whether this diagnostic process, conducted in a laboratory setting, fell under the exclusion of methods for diagnosis under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Tapas Chatterjee appealed a decision where the Assistant Controller rejected his patent application for 'Recovery of Potassium Sulphate...'. The rejection was based on pre-grant opposition filed by CSIR, citing lack of inventive step (Section 25(1)(e)). The High Court remanded the matter back to the CGPDTM for fresh consideration, restricting it only to the objection raised by CSIR regarding inventive step.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Aet Laboratories Private Limited & Anr
The suit was filed by Helsinn Healthcare Sa seeking permanent injunction against Aet Laboratories Private Limited and others for infringing its patent IN 426553, which covers compositions for treating chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The court ultimately vacated the existing ad interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish territorial jurisdiction or a prima facie case.
Neeraj Gupta v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Neeraj Gupta appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected his patent application for an 'Intravenous Catheter Device.' The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, citing specific prior art. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider detailed submissions and oral arguments, thereby violating natural justice. The Delhi High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside both the initial rejection order and the subsequent dismissal of the review petition.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Aethlon Medical, Inc appealed an order refusing to grant its patent application for a medical device used in extracorporeal removal of microvesicular particles. The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court examined the matter, accepting the auxiliary claims as permissible amendments within the specification. Ultimately, the court found that the merits had not been fully examined and remanded the case back to the Controller General for fresh consideration, granting the appellant a hearing.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Cloud Wellness Private Limited & Anr.
Honasa Consumer Limited sought an interim injunction against Cloud Wellness Private Limited, alleging infringement of its trade dress and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, noting that the issues of originality, prior use, and distinctiveness of the 'Subject Trade Dress' are complex factual questions requiring a full trial. Given the prolonged market co-existence between both parties, the court found no compelling case for granting an immediate injunction.
Mr. Ar Rahman v.Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar
This appeal addressed a dispute over the copyright ownership of the musical composition 'Shiva Stuti.' The plaintiff, Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, claimed authorship and sought recognition and injunctions against A.R. Rahman for using the composition in his song 'Veera Raja Veera.' The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff could establish prima facie evidence of copyright ownership based on family claims and performance history. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's judgment. The court held that mere evidence of rendering or performing a musical work is insufficient to prove authorship under Section 2(d)(ii) and Section 2(ffa), thereby dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Novartis Ag challenged the Controller's orders that deferred and then reserved decisions regarding post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning a request for cross-examination of the opponent's experts in relation to Patent IN'518. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the Petitioner's plea and noting that the Petitioner had waived their right to cross-examine by conscious election.
Exotic Mile v.Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court reviewed an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. While the court affirmed the injunction against Exotic Mile's use of certain specified marks, it quashed the restriction on the tag line "UNPLUG YOURSELF" because the original plaintiff had not sought that specific restraint. Furthermore, the court clarified that since the mark GOBOULT was never subject to an injunction, Exotic Mile remains free to use it unless a separate cause of action is filed.
Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Saint Gobain Glass France appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 201717045317), titled 'Material comprising a stack of thin layers', by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the claimed invention lacked technical advancement over prior art.
K Arjun Singh And Others v.Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside an adverse interim injunction that had been granted against the appellants' registered trademarks. The court found the initial finding of infringement to be ex facie impermissible and noted a lack of categorical finding regarding passing off goodwill. Consequently, both parties agreed to have the Commercial Court decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC without being influenced by the previous impugned order.
Frimline Private Limited v.K-Smatco Lifesciences Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants are infringing upon their patented pharmaceutical composition, IN 382949, and also copying content from the Plaintiffs' website. The Suit Patent covers a synergistic combination of Lactoferrin and Guanosine Nucleotide for treating anaemia. Based on the prima facie evidence presented, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from marketing or selling the infringing product 'FERROTOK PLUS', while also allowing interim protection for the Plaintiffs' copyright.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its mark PETKIND in Class 5, citing similarity to a prior application 'PETKIND PHARMA'. The Appellant argued that its extensive goodwill and established 'KIND Family of Marks' should prevail. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr. v.The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P.
This appeal challenged a lower court's decision that rejected an application to dismiss a suit based on lack of jurisdiction. The respondent, holding registered trademarks like POLO, sued the petitioners (Da Polo) for infringement and passing off related to their use of similar marks online. The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order, finding that since both parties were conducting business through interactive websites and e-commerce platforms within the court's jurisdiction, a valid cause of action existed.
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register a trademark application. The core issue revolves around whether a cited mark had been properly assigned to the appellant before the refusal order was issued. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for both parties, indicating that the matter is proceeding through the appellate process.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Sauss Home Products Private Limited
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited sought an interim injunction against Sauss Home Products Private Limited, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to its 'Robin' bird device mark used in FMCG products. The court first dismissed the defendant's challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, finding that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to sales and online promotion there. Subsequently, the court found a prima facie case for passing off and copyright infringement, granting an interim injunction against the defendant.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, sued defendants for patent infringement concerning its self-propelled combine harvester (HARVES KING). Defendant No. 3 filed an application seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Impresario Entertainment, setting aside the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its trademark application. The court found that the Registrar violated the principles of natural justice because the Appellant was prevented from participating in the scheduled virtual hearing due to technical impediments. Furthermore, the Impugned Order failed to consider crucial evidence, such as a Joint Memorandum of Compromise between the parties. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back for a fair and comprehensive hearing.
Aquestia Limited v.Automat Industries Private Limited
Aquestia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Automat Industries Private Limited and its affiliates for infringing Aquestia's registered patent, 'A Fluid Control Valve' (IN 427050). The plaintiff argued that the defendants were imitating established industry products, including the Series 75 valve, and selling infringing products both domestically and internationally. After considering arguments regarding infringement, delay, and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Aquestia Limited.
Treibacher Industrie Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Treibacher Industrie Ag appealed a rejection of its patent application concerning 'USE OF VANADATES AS OXIDATION CATALYSTS'. The Controller had refused the grant, citing lack of inventive step and issues with amended claims. However, the Delhi High Court set aside the Impugned Order, holding that it failed to adhere to principles of natural justice because it lacked a proper reasoned decision (speaking order). Furthermore, the court found that the Controller neglected to consider the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant.
Shri Ved Prakash Garg Trading As M/S Parul Food Products v.Mr. Dhruv Singh And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petitions filed by M/s Parul Food Products against Mr. Dhruv Singh, cancelling two registered trade marks ('FUNSHINE' and a Device Mark) in Class 30. The court found that these Impugned Marks were deceptively and identically similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'FUNFINE'. Given the Petitioner's prior use since 2005 compared to the Respondent's registration date of 2017, the judgment reinforced the principle that a prior user's rights supersede subsequent registrations when likelihood of confusion exists.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning its application for a foam laminate product used in vehicle interiors. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-speaking, failed to consider their submissions, and introduced new grounds (Section 10(5)) at the final stage, violating natural justice. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.M. B. Enterprises
Ferrero Spa filed a suit against M. B. Enterprises alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition related to its globally recognized brand, NUTELLA. Following reports of counterfeit products being manufactured under the same name in Thane, Maharashtra, Ferrero sought immediate protection. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing the alleged infringing activities until further proceedings.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its Indian Patent No. 3945681, which covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court allowed an application for judgment on admission against Defendant No. 2 after finding inescapable liability due to admissions made by the defendant.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed an order passed by the learned Single Judge regarding an interim application in a patent dispute. The respondents argued they had a license to manufacture but not sell the impugned drug in India, reserving the right to export. The High Court disposed of the appeal, advancing the date for further consideration on the issue of export.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of two Indian patents related to Pertuzumab (Perjeta). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and selling a competing version. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to conduct necessary analytical characterization or reverse engineering of the defendant's product as required under Section 104A.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zydus Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 340060, which covers the monoclonal antibody Nivolumab used in cancer treatment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was planning to launch a bio-similar version (ZRC-3276) during the patent's term. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without immediate relief.
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.