Judge Profile

F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla

4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 29, 2010

Yahoo! Inc v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Madras High Court · W.P.NO.4462 OF 2010

Yahoo! Inc challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's refusal to entertain its appeal against the Controller's order rejecting a patent application. The petitioner argued that the rejection under Section 25(1) should be construed as a decision under Section 15, allowing for an appeal. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the IPAB to hear the appeal on merits after giving due opportunity to the opposing party.

patent plaintiff favorable · May 18, 2009

M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited

Madras High Court · O.S.A.Nos.91 & 92 of 2008

TVS Motor Company Limited appealed against an order that granted an interim injunction to Bajaj Auto Limited, restraining TVS from manufacturing its 125 cc 'FLAME' motorcycle due to alleged infringement of Patent No.195904. The court held that while the patent might be valid prima facie, the Appellant's unique three-valve technology with twin plugs produces a distinct result and does not constitute infringement.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 2, 2008

Indian Network for People living with HIV/AIDS v.Union of India

Madras High Court · Writ Petition No. 24904 of 2008

The petitioners, representing people living with HIV/AIDS, challenged the grant of Patent No.207232 by F.Hoffmann-La Roche AG for Valganciclovir derivative. They argued that since India adopted a product patent regime in 2005, any product invention disclosed prior to 1995 should be considered public domain and lack novelty. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the patent grant.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 29, 2008

Wipro Limited v.Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Limited

Madras High Court · O.S.A. Nos.64 to 67 of 2008

Wipro Limited appealed against a single judge's decision to reject suits filed for trademark infringement ("Chandrika") and copyright infringement. The core issue was whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction, as the respondents were located outside its territorial limits. The court held that when challenging jurisdiction via demurrer, the allegations in the plaint must be accepted as true.

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 →