Jyoti Singh
235 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
235 cases indexed | Page 3 of 8
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Fortune Marketing Private Limited v.Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
The Delhi High Court revoked the impugned copyright registration of the artistic work/label/packaging titled ZOOOK in favor of Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. due to procedural flaws. The court found that the grant of copyright registration was procedurally flawed and deserved to be revoked. The original application filed by Respondent No.1 is revived for fresh consideration by Respondent No.2. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd, restraining Ks Agro Impex from selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in packaging that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress. The court found that the defendant's packaging was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm the plaintiff's goodwill. The defendant is allowed to continue selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice using distinct and non-deceptive packaging. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the FMCG sector.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd v.Manju Kumari Wife Of Sudhir Suman & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd to cancel the registration of the trademark PROTRILEX, which was found to be deceptively similar to Danone's registered trademark PROTINEX. The court held that the registration of PROTRILEX was in violation of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register within four weeks.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Walter Healthcare Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court declared the trademark CALPOL as a well-known trademark in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to its long-standing reputation and extensive use in India. The court recognized the significant commercial presence and recognition of the mark CALPOL in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical products. The defendant was restrained from using the WALPOL mark, which was deemed deceptively similar to the CALPOL mark.
M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Lakha Ram Sharma
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The petitioners, Asustek Computer Inc, filed petitions seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the patent register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning exemptions and procedural matters.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Delhi High Court heard petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding document division and exemptions.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN414518 and its removal from the Register of Patents. The respondent submitted that the patent in question had already been revoked, which was acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed against an order that dismissed its post-grant opposition to Indian Patent No. 319780. The appeal challenged the dismissal on grounds that the impugned order was non-speaking and failed to consider crucial reply evidence and documents filed by ITC under Rule 59 of the Patents Rules, 2003. The Court found that the Controller had ignored categorical directions regarding these submissions.
Apriori Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Apriori Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision dated 15.12.2025, which refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202017008435. The court issued notice to the respondent and set a date for returnable hearing.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to expedite the consideration of their Indian Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011, which had been pending for over 15 years despite multiple pre-grant oppositions being filed. The Court noted the unacceptable delay and directed the Respondents to decide the application and all related oppositions as expeditiously as possible within four months.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a method of integrity testing a liquid sterilizing grade filter due to lack of inventive step. The court allowed the amendment sought by the appellant and partially set aside the refusal order, remanding the matter back to the Respondent for fresh examination.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting the grant of a patent application. The Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal, which was accepted by the Respondent.
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to lead expert evidence regarding the potential revocation of an impugned patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to file the necessary evidence affidavit.
Tak Technologies Private Limited v.Sagi Faifer & Anr.
Tak Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 477619 held by Mr. Sagi Faifer. The court issued notices and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201617000209). However, the Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal.
Tak Technologies Private Limited v.Sagi Faifer & Anr.
Tak Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 477619 held by Mr. Sagi Faifer. The court issued notice and directed Respondent No. 1 to file a reply within four weeks.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The refusal was based on a lack of novelty in view of prior art D1: US3840070A. The court allowed an auxiliary request to amend claim 1, finding that the amendment did not broaden the scope and was disclosed in the specification.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for a method of controlling insects in stored food using synthetic amorphous silica. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d).
Faiveley Transport Tours v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Faiveley Transport Tours filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated November 07, 2025. The appellant seeks to quash that order and obtain a patent grant for application no. 202117042875.
Colonel Dhyan Mayadas Retired v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner, a retired military officer, filed a patent application for 'Ballistic Armour Shield' in 2018. Despite the application being deemed 'in order for grant' by the Patent Office (Respondent No. 2), it remained pending with DRDO (Respondent No. 3) for nearly seven years without consideration. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to expedite the process.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court heard arguments regarding a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). The court settled several issues, including ownership and potential grounds for revocation. Subsequently, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to expedite evidence recording and constituted a confidentiality club upon application by the Defendant.
Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited v.The Indian Patent Office & Ors.
The Appellant, Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited, filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202011037218. The current order addresses applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling the said appeal.
Manu Chaudhary v.Controller Of Patents And Design
Manu Chaudhary appealed the refusal of his patent application (IN 201711047431) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was primarily based on the lack of National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval. The High Court found that since the appellant had applied for NBA approval, the Controller should have deferred the final order instead of refusing the patent application.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed an application seeking directions for the inspection of heat exchanger plates manufactured by the Defendant and taking on record relevant documents. The Court, relying on Section 115(1) of The Patents Act, appointed a Scientific Advisor to conduct an inspection and provide a detailed report comparing the impugned products with Patent No. 322307.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The suit concerned alleged infringement of Patent No. 229051 by the Defendant regarding Valsartan and Sacubitril products. Since the subject patent IN'051 expired, the parties reached an amicable settlement which was recorded by the court.
Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of Patent Application IN'563 on grounds of lack of inventive step. The application relates to an air-cooling system for pre-cooling ambient air using a mist of water in an HVAC system. The High Court found the impugned order unreasoned and failed to follow the five steps required for determining obviousness, leading to the remand of the matter.
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd v.The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller's decision refusing its divisional patent application for 'PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF PEMETREXED'. The refusal was based on the prior refusal of the mother application. However, since the mother application was subsequently granted, the High Court found the reason for refusal no longer tenable.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The suit was filed alleging infringement of Patent No. 269841 (IN'841) by Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd regarding the compound Ruxolitinib. After discussions, the Defendant provided an undertaking that they would not commercialize the patented compound during the patent's validity. The court accepted this undertaking and disposed of the suit on consent terms.
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.