Judge Profile

Bench:Vibhu Bakhru

95 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

95 cases indexed | Page 4 of 4

patent defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2015

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 4330/2012, W.P.(C) 4365/2012, W.P.(C) 4366/2012, W.P.(C) 6199/2012 & W.P.(C) 7853/2012

The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2015

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 4330/2012 (and others)

The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PVPFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2015

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 4330/2012, W.P.(C) 4365/2012, W.P.(C) 4366/2012, W.P.(C) 6199/2012 & W.P.(C) 7853/2012

The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.

patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 5, 2014

Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court · CM 9687/2014 in W.P.(C) 1971/2014

The application sought permission to export 1 kg of API Sorafenib (Sorafenat), which was manufactured under a compulsory license granted to NPL. Bayer challenged this export, arguing it constituted a commercial transaction and violated the terms of the compulsory license. The Court ultimately held that the export for regulatory approval purposes falls within the exception provided by Section 107A.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 29, 2014

Merck Serono S.A. v.Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 4157/2012

Merck Serono S.A. challenged the Controller of Patents & Design's decision to declare its patent application abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that it had actively pursued the application by responding to both the First and Second Examination Reports. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that active pursuit negates abandonment.

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 →