Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
405 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
405 cases indexed | Page 5 of 14
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Arkema France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Arkema France appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a 'Heat Transfer Method'. The appellant argued that the rejection relied heavily on a new prior art document (D5) introduced only at the hearing stage. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing potential amendments under Section 59 if disclosure is deemed inadequate.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application for an 'IMAGE CONSTRUCTION APPARATUS'. The appellant challenged the refusal order on grounds that the conclusions regarding obviousness and patent eligibility (Section 3(k)) were unreasoned. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sujatha Manthri trading as Herald Healthcare
The Madras High Court allowed Corona Remedies' petition to rectify the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'B9' (No. 3281514) registered by Sujatha Manthri. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established mark 'B29', especially considering both marks were used for pharmaceutical products. Given Corona Remedies' long history of use, significant sales turnover, and reputation, the court ruled in favor of removing the conflicting registration.
Contitech USA Inc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Contitech USA Inc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'TORQFLEX'. The court found that there was an arguable case suggesting the goods associated with TORQFLEX (power transmission belts) were not similar enough to the cited conflicting mark (TORSIFLEX, used for couplings). Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that protection is only granted if identical or similar marks are used on identical or similar goods, thereby directing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
Vennila Clothing Company filed a suit against M/s.Arrs Silks alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('RAMRAJ'/'RAJARAM') and copyright over its trade dress in the textile industry. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar labels by the defendants, leading to claims for injunction, damages, and account of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement via a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (MOC).
Optimus Drugs Private Limited v.Union of India
Optimus Drugs Private Limited challenged the hearing notice issued during the post-grant opposition proceedings against Patent No. 281489 for 'An improved process for the preparation of Linezolid'. The petitioner argued that since both parties filed additional evidence after the initial Opposition Board recommendations, a fresh board should be constituted to consider all facts and amended claims. The Madras High Court agreed with this contention, directing the Controller of Patents to reconstitute the Opposition Board and examine the entire record expeditiously.
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.