India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 110 of 164 · 4,909 total
Malabar Cements Limitd v.Drawing And Disbursing Officer, The Office of the Trademarks Registry; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Malabar Cements Limited's Writ Petition, setting aside an earlier rejection order from the Trademarks Registry. The court ruled that a Notice of Opposition filed against Trademark Application No 427808 fell within the prescribed window for filing opposition, based on a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks. Consequently, the respondents agreed to accept and record the opposition upon re-submission within three weeks.
Usha International Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr.
Usha International Limited filed a petition seeking the removal/cancellation of the mark 'WSHA' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that it is deceptively similar to their long-standing mark 'USHA'. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was subsequently listed for further arguments on April 4, 2022.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The case involves Novartis AG seeking a permanent injunction against MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its patent related to Eltrombopag Olamine, the active ingredient in its drug Revolade.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co. Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The suit was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group challenging an impugned order from the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja), Section 3(d), and Section 10 of the Patents Act, 1970. The plaintiff argued that the objections under Section 10 were never raised during examination and that deleted claims were improperly used for rejection.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No.4380/DELNP/2013 by the Controller of Patents, which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant challenged the basis and citation of the prior art documents used against them.
Agriboard International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Agriboard International LLC appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing its patent application for 'Efficient Method and Apparatus for Producing Compressed Structural Fiberboard' on grounds of lack of inventive step. The petitioner argued that the refusal was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning regarding the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art (D1).
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Azista Industries Private Limited & Ors
Pfizer Inc and others filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts against Azista Industries Private Limited and others for infringing their patented drug 'Palbociclib'. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim ex parte injunction.
UPL Limited v.Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute involved UPL Limited asserting its patent rights over the composition Clodinafop-Propargyl (15%) + Metsulfuron Methyl (1%) WP against Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. The matter was amicably settled before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
The suit sought permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 270765 concerning Baricitinib (Barinat). The patent holder alleged that licensed companies were marketing and exporting the product outside its approved use (COVID-19) for Rheumatoid Arthritis, primarily through e-commerce platforms like Indiamart.
Republic Technologies (Na) Llc v.Vipin Pathak Trading As M/S Pathak Impex
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Republic Technologies against Vipin Pathak regarding the alleged infringement of the 'OCB' trademark and copyright related to smoking accessories. While the court noted that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's rights, it also accepted the defendant's willingness to change their logo and mark. Consequently, an existing interim order was made absolute, while the matter was scheduled for further hearing after the defendant presented proposed changes.
Diageo Brands B V & Anr v.Rock And Storm Distilleries Private Limited
This case involved a dispute over the use of distinctive bottle designs and trademarks in the spirits industry. Diageo Brands sued Rock And Storm Distilleries for infringement of its registered design (No. 306577) and trademark ('Hipster', No. 4419654), alongside passing off related to trade dress. The parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Delhi High Court.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd
Novartis initiated multiple suits against various defendants, including Windlas Biotech and Eris Lifesciences, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN229051, which covers a combination drug (Valsartan + Sacubitril) used to treat cardiovascular disease. The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions and access to distribution details. While the court maintained an interim injunction against manufacturing and selling the patented composition, it also directed Eris Lifesciences Limited to deposit Rs. 5 crores due to the marketing of stock post-infringement.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered patents related to Top Hammer Rock Drilling Tools. The court passed an interim order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from commercializing the infringing products and directed the defendants to disclose specific financial and production details on affidavit.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Jigs Chemical Limited & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1, alleging that the defendant was advertising and selling 'APIXABAN' (a patented pharmaceutical preparation) as an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API). The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the manufacturing and sale of APIXABAN.
Xiaomi Inc v.Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited & Anr.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed a request filed by Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited to cancel the trademark 'SHOMI.' The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the register after the respondent provided an affidavit confirming that they were not using the trademark and would not use it in the future for related goods. This decision highlights the importance of active use or intent to use when maintaining a registered trademark.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs claim infringement of their patent related to drugs comprising 'FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE'. The defendant argues that MSN Laboratories is the manufacturer for them.
Mitsubishi Power Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mitsubishi Power Ltd appealed against the rejection of its patent application by The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of the stay application (I.A. 11537/2021), noting that since the patent had been rejected, no interim order could be granted.
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited v.The Controller of Patents
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited filed an appeal against the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617034934) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Ram Trading Co. v.Amar Singh Chawal Wala And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging the cancellation of the Petitioner's registered trademark 'RAJQILLA'. The court noted that since the mark had already been cancelled by the IPAB, an interim stay could not be granted without examining the merits of the challenge. After initial procedural delays and requests for adjournment due to connectivity issues, the matter was listed for further hearing.
Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha v.Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha & Anr.
This appeal challenged an order from the Commercial Court which held that a suit seeking protection for the mark 'Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha' was not a commercial dispute. The petitioner argued that since the dispute related to their intellectual property rights—specifically, an unregistered trademark/name—it must fall under Section 2(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Delhi High Court agreed with this contention, setting aside the lower court's order.
Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. v.Praveen S/o. Shri Gokulchand Murarka
Bhama Enterprises challenged an order granting a temporary injunction to Praveen (M/s. Modware India) regarding the alleged infringement of their 'Kool Kruizer' bottle design by the defendant's 'Cool Crazy' product. The core dispute centered on whether trademark protection in Class 32 could cover the physical shape, or if the defendant's valid registration under the Designs Act provided superior rights. The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction and dismissing the plaintiff's application.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Actis Generics Pvt Ltd
The suit involved a dispute over Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin for diabetes treatment. The parties amicably resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement dated March 15, 2022.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1 for infringing their patented pharmaceutical preparation 'APIXABAN'. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No.1 was advertising and selling the product through various platforms including Indiamart and Tradeindia. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Angle Bio Pharma from manufacturing or selling APIXABAN without authorization, and directed the intermediary websites to take down the listings.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr
The case involves a revocation petition filed by Micro Labs Limited against the patent granted to Bristol-Myers Squibb for a pharmaceutical compound used as an anticoagulant. The court granted an interim injunction restraining Micro Labs from manufacturing and selling the product covered by the patent.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants (Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.) for infringement of Patent No. 259932 ("ARRANGING HANDOVER") by various mobile devices. The court addressed applications regarding adding new claims and devices during the pendency of the suit.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, which rejected its patent application (No. 1026/DEL/2012). The High Court first condoned the delay in filing the appeal and subsequently listed the matter for further hearing to determine if the invention has been put to commercial use.
M/S Ayush Aqua System v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Ayush Aqua System against the rejection of its trademark 'ZENKO' in Class 11. The court found that despite a cited mark ('ZENCO') existing for related goods, the goods applied for were sufficiently distinct. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised before acceptance, provided the appellant restricts itself to the applied-for goods and does not manufacture products covered by the cited mark.
Octave Apparels v.Nirmal Kumar Trading As Apricot Fashion Alloy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration ('METTLE') and simultaneously considered a related injunction suit. Recognizing the identical issues and parties, the court exercised its power under Section 24 CPC to transfer the pending commercial suit from the District Court to be tried alongside the present rectification petition in the High Court. This consolidation streamlines the legal process for both parties involved.
M/s. New Rubric Solutions LLP v.Pearson India Education Services Private Limited
The plaintiff, M/s. New Rubric Solutions LLP, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Pearson India Education Services Private Limited, infringed its intellectual property rights by using and misrepresenting the test results of its assessment product 'Kaleido' in the defendant's product 'MyPedia'. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The case involves a suit seeking an injunction against HFCL Limited for allegedly infringing on Sterlite Technologies' patent related to optical fiber cables. The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the infringing products.
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.