India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 104 of 164 · 4,909 total
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
The plaintiffs initiated a suit for infringement and perpetual injunction under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, concerning their registered air cooler design. The defendants subsequently filed an application challenging the suit's validity before the High Court. This court addressed the objections raised by the defendants regarding jurisdiction, parallel proceedings, and cause of action. Ultimately, the court dismissed the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, affirming the maintainability of the original infringement suit.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Competition Commission Of India
Vifor International Ltd. challenged the orders of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which initiated an inquiry into its licensing practices regarding the patent for Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM). Vifor argued that the CCI was exceeding its jurisdiction by seeking commercially sensitive information related to a patented product, touching upon rights under the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it premature and noting that the CCI would consider the petitioner's objections.
Novartis A G v.Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Novartis A G filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited for infringing its patent (IN 237430) covering the drug molecule Nilotinib. The dispute arose after the Defendant submitted bids to a government tender using the patented substance. During the proceedings, the Defendants conceded that they had no intention to manufacture or sell the preparation during the patent's lifetime. Consequently, the court decreed the suit for permanent injunction, contingent upon the filing of an affidavit detailing existing stock and an undertaking to comply with the decree.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd & Ors.
The court heard various interlocutory applications in a patent infringement suit filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd & Ors. The core issue addressed was whether the Plaintiff could amend its claims to include additional infringing devices or assert infringement under other patents during the pendency of the suit.
Ravinder Singhania v.Union Of India & Anr.
Ravinder Singhania filed a writ petition challenging the validity of certain provisions related to patents. Since one of the reliefs sought involved questioning the legal validity (vires) of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Rule 24B(2)(i) of the Patents Rules, 2003, the court ordered the matter to be listed before a Division Bench.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center
Sotefin SA filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 214088, which relates to a self-propelled carriage for horizontal transfer of motor vehicles. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and entered into Consent Terms.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public International School
The Delhi Public School Society filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Delhi Public International School for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the use of 'DPIS' was deceptively similar to their established brand 'DPS'. The court initially granted an interim injunction recognizing the plaintiff's prior rights. However, upon considering subsequent developments, particularly the change in name by the defendant school, the court concluded that the main cause of action no longer survived against all parties. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, allowing the plaintiff to pursue remedies regarding pending trademark applications.
UltraTech Cement Limited v.Dlvk Cement Private Limited
The suit filed by UltraTech Cement Limited against Dlvk Cement Private Limited was settled out of court. The Bombay High Court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, disposed of the suit and interim application, and decreed the matter in accordance with the settlement terms.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 (Patentee) seeking dismissal of revocation petitions on the grounds of being time-barred. The court held that since no specific limitation is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision. Furthermore, interim stay applications were dismissed as the patent was already granted and injunctions had been granted elsewhere.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 seeking dismissal of revocation petitions concerning patent IN 243301 (Linagliptin) on the grounds that they were time-barred. The Court held that since no specific limitation period is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Surjit Dairy Products
The commercial IP suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Surjit Dairy Products was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
Osaka University v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Osaka University appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 3495/DELNP/2012) for 'Bridged Artificial Nucleoside and Nucleotide'. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The suit was filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking rendition of accounts and recovery of money against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Patent No. IN212714. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which the Court accepted and decreed the suit in terms of that agreement.
I. M. A. Industria Macchine Automatiche S. P. A. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant, a manufacturer of packaging materials, appealed against the Controller's rejection of its patent application for a transporting apparatus. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step over cited prior art documents. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient reasons and failed to deal with the merits or arguments raised by the appellant.
Incyte Holding Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Incyte Holding Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8686/DELNP/2010) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal was filed after a considerable delay of 530 days. The court condoned this delay, allowing the main appeal to proceed.
RRR Motion Pictures And Ors v.Shahe Ali
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking to set aside an order that framed issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether the Petitioners' request for permission to file a rectification petition under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been properly considered. The Court clarified that while a civil court must examine the prima facie tenability of an invalidity plea, this process is not equivalent to granting 'permission.' It directed the Commercial Court to decide on the validity application before proceeding with the main infringement trial.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'JIMSUN' held by Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd. The court granted the relief based on a settlement reached between the parties, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to have no objection to the cancellation. This order effectively cleared the path for the Petitioner to remove the disputed mark from the registry.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The commercial suit for patent infringement concerning Sitagliptin (protected by IN 209816) was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. The Defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and agreed to cease all infringing activities, including manufacturing generic versions, until the patent expires.
Usha International Limited v.Citizen Udyog
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by the defendant seeking vacation of an interim injunction and return of the plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. While the defendant argued that all operations were outside Delhi, the plaintiff countered by citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and evidence showing export activities originating from ICD Delhi. The court directed both parties to obtain and file the Local Commissioner's report and related photographic evidence before proceeding with the substantive arguments.
General Mills Inc. v.Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd Federation
In this ongoing trademark dispute, General Mills Inc. sought to incorporate the registration of its mark 'TRIX' into the existing pleadings. The Delhi High Court accepted the amendment and subsequently framed a new, specific issue before the court. This new issue directly addresses whether the defendant's use of the 'TRIX' mark constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Sandeep Kumar v.Pla Foods Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar challenging an ex parte ad interim injunction issued by a lower Commercial Court, which restrained him from using the trademark 'CHEFFY'. The court noted that while the appellant raised issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and prior knowledge of usage, it deemed inappropriate to interfere with the existing interim order at that stage. The appeal was ultimately disposed of, allowing the original parties to advance their full contentions before the Commercial Court.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Chougle Salt Works Private Limited
Tata Sons Private Limited successfully resolved its intellectual property dispute against Chougle Salt Works Private Limited through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement acknowledging that the defendant had inadvertently infringed upon Tata's registered copyrights (TATASALT packaging) and trademarks (TATA SALT). Under the terms, the defendant agreed to cease using similar marks, destroy infringing materials, and permanently refrain from applying for or using any confusingly similar IP rights. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this settlement.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of its rights in patents claimed to be standards essential to 3G and 4G communications standards. The Plaintiff suspects that various other patents may also be infringed by the Defendants.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Laziq Trading Company
The Plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, filed an interim application seeking relief against Laziq Trading Company for alleged infringement of its well-known trademarks and copyrights associated with the DR. FIXIT silicone sealant range. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling goods bearing similar marks or infringing the artistic work on the packaging.
Usha International Limited v.Tarun Arora Trading As Krishan Enterprises
Usha International Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Arora for trademark infringement concerning sewing machines. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting Usha's long-standing use of the mark 'USHA' since 1936 and its status as a well-known mark. Finding that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WSHA', the court granted an interim restraint order, preventing the defendant from using the infringing marks until further proceedings.
Essential Export Sociedad Anonima v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Essential Export Sociedad Anonima challenging the rejection of its multi-class trademark application (No. 3639686). While dismissing a request for stay, the court found prima facie grounds to reconsider the matter. The court noted that certain facts, including oppositions and COVID-19 related adjournments, had not been properly considered by the Registrar's Examiner. Consequently, the case was remanded back to allow for fresh consideration of the application.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Chiral Biosciences Limited for infringing Merck Sharp & Dohme's patent (IN 209816) covering Sitagliptin. Although the court found evidence of infringement, it ultimately denied the permanent injunction because the patent had expired by July 2022, but awarded damages and costs.
Kanishka Sinha & Anr v.The Union Of India & Ors
The petitioners sought a direction to the Deputy Director General (VAHAN), National Informatics Centre, to grant linkage of their patented software with the Vehicle Registration and Homogation System. The matter was settled amicably between the parties, leading to the court disposing of the writ petition.
The Goodyear Tire Rubber Company v.Deva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the Trademark Registrar to immediately comply with a prior judgment favoring Goodyear Tire Rubber Company. The court confirmed that the defendant had paid the stipulated litigation costs. Crucially, the Registrar was directed to remove the defendant's infringing 'GOOD YEAR' trademark (No. 1120219) from the register and dispose of related rectification and opposition proceedings within one week. This order solidifies Goodyear's position against unauthorized use of its mark.
Abhishek Gupta v.Vipin Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Gupta, who was seeking restraint against trademark and copyright infringement related to his 'BOL' sports publication. Despite initial resistance based on delayed approach, the court found a prima facie case for the appellant. The judgment specifically restrained Vipin Jain from passing off or associating their goods with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights, recognizing the likelihood of consumer confusion due to similar get-up and use.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.