Madras High Court
1428 cases · page 5 of 48
Showing 121–149M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED v.WHEELS INDIA LIMITED
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.
BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No.625/CHE/2011 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application related to a method and kit for detecting Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) using specific nucleotide sequences. Bigtec argued that their claimed sequences demonstrated unexpected effects over prior art, countering objections regarding lack of inventive step and patentability under Section 3(c). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
Heritage Foods (India) Limited v.Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trade mark 'HERITAGE' registered by Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., citing prior use by Heritage Foods (India) Limited. Despite the petitioner demonstrating substantial sales turnover and long-standing use, the court found evidence supporting the first respondent's honest and bona fide adoption of the mark for edible oils since 1994. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the court imposed a crucial condition: the registration remains valid only for edible oils.
M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Sh.S.Lal Singh
In this appeal before the Madras High Court, M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. challenged the Trade Marks Registry's decision to dismiss an opposition based on the finding that 'GOLDMEDAL' and 'SILVERMEDAL' were different marks. The court noted evidence of prior use by Goldmedal's predecessor since 1987, and crucially, referenced a separate Civil Court decree confirming the deceptive similarity between the two trademarks. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the Registry's finding of difference would not be binding on the appellant in future proceedings related to these marks.
Robert Bosch Limited v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Robert Bosch Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201944047460), which was initially rejected by the Deputy Controller of Patents on grounds including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and exclusion under Section 3(m) because it was a method claim. The High Court set aside the rejection based on the finding that the claimed process is an inventive process, not merely a theoretical or mental act, and remanded the matter for re-examination on non-Section 3(m) grounds.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.Union of India
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited challenged the granting of Indian Patent No. 439474, which was issued despite a rejected pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner. The core dispute centered on whether the Controller had adequately reasoned and considered the material evidence presented by both parties regarding novelty and inventive step. Although the court initially questioned the maintainability of the writ petition as an appeal in disguise, it ultimately allowed the petitioner to file a post-grant opposition.
Iconic Ip Interests Llc and The Hershey Company v.Dukes Consumer Care Limited and The Registrar of Trademarks
Iconic IP Interests LLC and The Hershey Company successfully petitioned the Madras High Court for the rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark 'TWO MUCH'. The petitioners argued that the respondent's mark had not been used continuously for five years from its date of registration. Given the lack of evidence of use by Dukes Consumer Care Limited, the court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar to remove the impugned entry from the register.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed an order rejecting its patent application (No. 7133/CHENP/2009) on the grounds that the invention was a non-patentable 'business method' under Section 3(k). The High Court examined the claim and held that since the invention involves using software to improve system functionality for verification, it is not merely a business method. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for re-consideration.
M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP v.M/s. NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP, finding that the defendant's use of 'NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant' constituted deceptive similarity and trademark infringement. The court held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, especially since both parties operate in the identical restaurant business. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions against further misuse and an order for the destruction of all infringing materials.
Akebia Therapeutics, INC. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Akebia Therapeutics appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647000423). The rejection was primarily based on the argument that amending the original method-of-treatment claim to a pharmaceutical composition claim violated Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside this order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Bristol Myers Squibb challenged communications from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Patent Application No. 5948/CHENP/2014, arguing that additional documents submitted by the opponent (Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance) should not be considered due to procedural non-compliance. The court ultimately declined to interfere with the decision to receive these documents but directed that the proceedings must conclude expeditiously within three months.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a Review Application challenging the judgment that rejected his appeal regarding Patent Application No.5606/CHENP/2012. The petitioner argued there were patent errors concerning Sections 10(4) and 3(k), specifically related to technical effect on hardware. However, the High Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a Review Application challenging the rejection of his earlier appeal, which had been rejected on both maintainability grounds (Section 117A) and merits. The petitioner argued that patent errors existed in the interpretation of Sections 10(4) and 3(k), specifically concerning technical effect and best mode. The Madras High Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent.
AMST – SYSTEMTECHNIK GMBH v.Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order treating its Patent Application No.3022/CHENP/2011 as withdrawn due to failure to request examination within the stipulated period. The court considered the sequence of events, noting that the petitioner intended to prosecute the application and citing previous judgments where similar facts led to non-withdrawal.
National Engineering College v.All India Council for Technical Education
This case involved a dispute between National Engineering College and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regarding the college's right to use 'National' in its name. The petitioner challenged AICTE regulations that sought to prohibit such usage, particularly those applied retrospectively. The Madras High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the college, holding that the regulatory notification was invalid and could not be applied retroactively, thereby protecting the institution's established identity.
Kemin Industries, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Kemin Industries appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning the use of Ferulic Acid Esterase (FAE) combined with four main chain degrading enzymes in monogastric animals. The appellant argued that the specific combination provided synergistic effects and was not obvious from prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a method related to detecting genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejections under Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) were flawed, citing lack of reasoning and procedural unfairness. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201747006075). The rejection was primarily based on Section 3(i), arguing that the method for detecting tumor-derived cell-free DNA falls under diagnostic processes and is therefore not patentable. The High Court set aside the impugned order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only to inventions that 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a method to detect genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on flawed reasoning regarding Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.
University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for methods using cell-free DNA to identify diseases. The original rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, arguing that the method found application in diagnostics. The High Court set aside this order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only if the invention 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art.
M/s. Effra Life Science v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of M/s. Effra Life Science's application for a device mark registration. The court found that despite both marks being in Class 35, the appellant's business (marketing pharmaceutical products) was fundamentally different from the cited prior mark's business (repair and installation of machinery). This distinction negated the likelihood of confusion, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
Shaperon Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Shaperon Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning compositions for treating allergic skin disorders containing GPCR19 agonists. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2416/CHE/2009) for 'TWO-STAGE MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUE'. The rejection was based on Section 3(k), classifying the claims as a mere computer programme per se. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the patent office failed to discuss or record reasons for rejecting the appellant's contentions.
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas appealed an order rejecting Patent Application No. 201941042481 for a method to capture carbon dioxide. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting that new grounds were raised by the respondent, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
M/s.Nirmala Transportation and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Nirmala Transportation's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's arguments regarding the distinct nature of services (goods transport vs. travel arrangements). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Registrar, contingent upon the appellant providing an undertaking restricting its use to goods transportation.
University College London v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
University College London appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application concerning 'A Delayed Release Drug Formulation.' The core dispute centered on whether the complete specification of the parent application related to more than one invention, which was the basis for rejection. The appellant argued that their claims were distinct and did not constitute double patenting. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for reconsideration.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for a Vehicle Monitoring System. The appellant argued that certain prior art documents did not qualify as prior art or failed to disclose the claimed invention's features, particularly data transmission capabilities when the vehicle is switched off. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Raghuvar (India) Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision regarding its opposition to the 'JAI HANUMAN' trademark. Although the appellant argued that their predecessor had prior, pan-India use and that a crucial assignment deed was ignored, the court ultimately found no infirmity in the original order. The rejection hinged on the lack of evidence demonstrating the appellant's actual use of the mark within South India, thereby upholding the Registrar's decision to restrict the scope of the new registration.
Navya Network Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Navya Network Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'TREATMENT RELATED QUANTITATIVE DECISION ENGINE'. The Controller raised objections regarding lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and exclusion under Section 3(k). The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was obvious to a Person Skilled in the Art (PSITA) based on cited prior art.
Magneti Marelli S.P.A. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Magneti Marelli appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting its patent application (No. 420/CHE/2009) on grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art citations. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to discuss their submissions distinguishing the invention from the cited prior arts. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unsupported by reasons and set it aside, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
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.