Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
431 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
431 cases indexed | Page 5 of 15
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5948/CHENP/2014) for a hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), known as Rimegepant, by the Indian Patent Office. The opposition was primarily based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, arguing that enhanced bioavailability alone does not guarantee patentability. The High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application for a new hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the compound demonstrated enhanced bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy compared to the free base form. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
M/s.The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and leaves. The appellant argued that the product was novel and not merely traditional knowledge, while the respondents contended that the invention fell under Section 3(p) as it related to traditional ingredients and was obvious based on prior art D1 to D3.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5584/CHENP/2010). The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and exclusion as a computer program per se. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the invention possesses enhanced technical effect and meets the inventive step criteria.
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT Madras) v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
IIT Madras appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a method for doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate to increase burn rates in solid propellants. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d) restrictions. The High Court upheld the rejection on grounds of Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja), finding the claimed technical advance obvious.
Pinnacle Engines Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Pinnacle Engines Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8612/CHENP/2012) for an opposed piston engine with non-collinear axes of translation, arguing that it provided a technical advance over conventional collinear engines. The court found potential prior art relevant to the inventive features and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The appeal addressed objections concerning lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and ambiguity in claim language. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, allowing the patent to proceed subject to specific amendments and deletions.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure, despite multiple pre-grant oppositions citing prior art. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order, directing that the patent proceed to grant after specific amendments were made to address clarity issues.
Ollos Biotech Private Limited v.Omega Ecotech Products India Limited
Ollos Biotech Private Limited filed an Original Petition to revoke Patent No.411774 granted to Omega Ecotech Products India Limited. The petitioner contended that the invention lacked novelty, inventive step, and was patent ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that both the product claim and method claim lacked an inventive step or novelty based on prior art and non-patent literature.
Novozymes A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Novozymes A/S appealed against the rejection of its Patent Application No.650/CHENP/2009, which covered 'Enzyme Granules for Animal Feed'. The initial objections raised by the Assistant Controller included lack of inventive step and non-patent eligibility under Section 3(d).
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody capable of binding to A-beta oligomers. The rejection was based on the grounds that the antibody was a natural nonliving substance and thus not patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection order.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an anti-PDGFR alpha antibody, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a discovery of a naturally existing molecule. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and recombinant technology involving transgenic mice, making it non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
Global Life Sciences Solutions USA LLC v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Global Life Sciences Solutions USA LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a Gamma Sterilizable RFID system. The invention utilizes a ferro-electric random access memory (FRAM) chip with redundant information storage to ensure data integrity when exposed to high-intensity gamma radiation used in sterilization processes. The Madras High Court examined whether this combination was obvious based on existing prior art, particularly regarding redundancy techniques. Ultimately, the court found that the nature and purpose of the claimed redundancy were fundamentally different from those disclosed in the cited prior art, thereby satisfying the inventive step requirement.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody targeting PDGFR alpha, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a naturally existing substance. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and transgenic mouse technology, making it recombinant and non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
Genmab A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genmab A/S appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 4718/CHENP/2007) for a monoclonal antibody targeting human CD38. The respondent argued that the antibody was merely a discovery of a naturally existing molecule, thus ineligible under Section 3(c). The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the antibody was produced through substantial human intervention and possessed inventive step.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.5542/CHENP/2010), which was rejected primarily on grounds that the claimed 6E4 antibody was an inherent feature and not patent-eligible under Section 3(c) as it was discovered in nature. The High Court set aside the rejection, holding that the specific method of production made the antibody patentable.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 1783/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection order did not properly assess non-obviousness, failing to apply established legal principles regarding inventive step analysis. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
M/s.Shambhunath & Bros v.Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions seeking rectification of trade mark registrations 'THUFAN' in Tamil and Telugu. The petitioner, M/s. Shambhunath & Bros, claimed prior use of the similar mark 'TOOFAN' since 1987, but the court found evidence suggesting that the predecessors-in-title of the respondent were the prior adopter and user. Consequently, the court held that the technical contraventions cited by the petitioner (such as lack of translation or failure to state period of use) were not sufficient grounds for cancelling the existing registrations.
M/s.Shambhunath & Bros v.Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions seeking rectification of trade mark registrations 'THUFAN' in Tamil and Telugu. The petitioner, M/s. Shambhunath & Bros, claimed prior use of the similar mark 'TOOFAN' since 1987, but the court found evidence suggesting that the predecessors-in-title of the respondent were the prior adopter and user. Consequently, the court held that the technical contraventions cited by the petitioner (such as lack of translation or failure to state period of use) were not sufficient grounds for cancelling the existing registrations.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order dated 11.11.2016 concerning Patent Application No. 6334/CHENP/2009, which related to polyamide materials with high fluid barrier properties. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and was obvious in view of prior art documents D5 and D6.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order regarding its patent application for a polyamide material with high fluid barrier properties. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art D5 and D6. The court examined the teachings of both prior arts and concluded that combining them would lead to an obvious invention.
Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Rathinasamy Gomathy and Registrar of Trade Marks at Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. against an existing trade mark registration. The petitioner sought the removal of the impugned device mark, arguing deceptive similarity to its 'GOLD WINNER' brand. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for maintaining the suit. Specifically, the court held that the non-use period prescribed under Section 47(1)(b) had not lapsed following the withdrawal of an earlier petition, and the cause of action under Section 47(1)(a) was barred by prior litigation.
Enercon India Ltd. v.M/S. Wobben Properties GmbH
Enercon India Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220033 granted by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. Both parties submitted that the term of the said patent had expired on November 7, 2023.
Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd v.Rakesh P.Jain
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd against Rakesh P.Jain and the Trade Marks Registry. The petition sought the rectification and cancellation of the trade mark 'BLUEDIO' registered under No.2245731 in Class 09. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo instructing the court to withdraw the entire petition, leading to its dismissal without any order as to costs.
Priya Randolph v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision rejecting their patent application (201641026786) on the grounds that the invention was a 'business method' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The court examined the claims, which related to concealing physical address information during e-commerce transactions using software and hardware. The High Court held that the monopoly claim was on a technical solution for data privacy, not merely a business method.
ABBVIE Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
ABBVIE Inc. appealed the refusal by the Deputy Controller of Patents to grant a patent for two polymorphic forms (Forms A and B) of the compound RTA-408. The appellant argued that these forms exhibited superior stability and properties, and that Section 3(d) did not apply because RTA-408 was not considered a known substance in this context. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the patent to proceed for grant on claims 1-6.
NEC Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
NEC Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its Patent Application No.7830/CHENP/2014, which was based on the alleged violation of Section 7(2) of the Patents Act due to the date of declaration by an inventor. The court held that there is a distinction between the date of assignment and the date of declaration, finding the impugned order unsustainable.
Martinswerk GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748011754) by The Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the application qualified as a divisional application containing separate inventive concepts, while the respondent maintained it did not meet Section 16 requirements. The High Court set aside the impugned order due to lack of reasoning and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. v.M/S.Supreme Tile Works
M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. filed two Original Petitions seeking the expungement and removal of registered trademarks belonging to M/S.Supreme Tile Works from the register. The petitions targeted marks like 'SUPREME TILE WORKS' and 'AMARJYOTHI' in Class 19, alleging grounds for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, before any substantive hearing could take place, the petitioner chose to withdraw both Original Petitions.
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.