Outcome Category

Dismissed

at Supreme Court - Daily Orders

4 dismissed decisions from Supreme Court - Daily Orders.

Dismissed Decisions

4 cases | Page 1 of 1

patent dismissed · Mar 7, 2025

Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Galactica Processing Technologies Llp

Supreme Court - Daily Orders · SLP (C) Diary No(s). 54314/2024

Sonani Industries challenged an impugned High Court order regarding its patent rights concerning Diamond Holding Devices. The Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding that the petitioner's interests were protected while directing parties to resolve the underlying suit and post-grant objections within specified timelines.

design dismissed · Mar 13, 2023

Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Relaxo Footwears Limited

Supreme Court - Daily Orders · CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2261-2262 OF 2023)

Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd appealed against the registration granted to Relaxo Footwears Limited for a slipper design. The Supreme Court accepted a new design from Aqualite and ordered that the pending appeals and related applications be disposed of, subject to the parties being bound by their statements.

patent dismissed · Feb 16, 2016

Research Foundation, Sci., Tech. & Eco. & Anr. v.Union of India & Ors.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders · WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 64 OF 2004

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Union of India to challenge patents related to wheat in international forums, citing concerns over biodiversity protection and biopiracy. The court noted that the specific patent challenged had since been revoked by the European Patent Office.

patent dismissed · Dec 16, 2015

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders · Civil Appeal No(s). /2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No(s).34749-34751/2015)

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. filed a suit for injunction alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its patent. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, noting that while the Single Judge found infringement, the Division Bench had stayed the order due to pending objections under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing parties to continue being governed by an earlier court order.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →