India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 13 of 95 · 2,847 total
New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex v.Narmada Agrobase Limited
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal challenging an injunction granted by the lower court against New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex. The core issue was not the merits of trademark infringement, but rather that the trial court's original judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion. Citing established legal principles regarding judicial transparency and natural justice, the High Court quashed the restrictive order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision supported by complete reasons.
Vmi Holland B.V. v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Vmi Holland B.V. appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected their patent application, titled "Assembly for and method of making a tyre component," on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The High Court found the rejection order to be arbitrary, devoid of reasons, and lacking proper adjudication on the merits.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject a patent application for a lamp lightning control circuit. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to address their submissions and ignored evidence, thus violating natural justice. The Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents, which dismissed their application for 'A LAMP LIGHTNING CONTROL CIRCUIT' on grounds of obviousness and lack of inventive steps. The High Court found that the impugned order was unsustainable because it lacked reasons and failed to address the appellant's submissions and evidence.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Sanofi - Aventis challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller Patent and Designs, which rejected their subject invention under Sections 2(i)(j)(a) and 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Calcutta High Court took cognizance of this appeal (Oa/11/2019/Pt/Kol). While the Respondent Controller remained unrepresented, the court directed Sanofi - Aventis to ensure proper service on the Controller and file an Affidavit of Service before listing the matter for further hearing.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Driving Support Device and Vehicle Driving Support Method'. The rejection was based on the lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'NOVEL FORMS Of CDDO METHYL ESTER' on grounds of non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The appellant argued that the rejection failed to consider crucial clinical trial data demonstrating enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the authority must deal with all submitted evidence and provide reasoned orders.
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design regarding its application for 'TISSUE SCAFFOLDS DERIVED FROM FORESTOMACH EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX'. The invention relates to an implantable tissue scaffold device using ruminant forestomach extracellular matrix, intended for applications like wound repair and breast augmentation. The initial rejection was based on grounds including Sections 3(b) and (i), and failure to comply with Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970.
ARDENIA INVESTMENTS, LTD. v.CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR
This case involves an appeal filed by Ardenia Investments Ltd. against a previous order dismissing its patent application for a "Drug Delivery System for administration of poorly Water Soluble pharmaceutical Active Substances." The original dismissal held that the subject matter lacked technical advancement and inventive steps, specifically citing Section 3(d) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court has issued procedural directions to the appellant regarding the continuation of the appeal.
S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd v.H.R.Marketing
S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd successfully secured a judgment against H.R.Marketing in the Madras High Court regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to their product label and trade dress. Although the suit involved claims under both Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, the parties reached a memorandum of compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, granting permanent injunctions and ordering the destruction of all infringing materials.
SML Limited v.Mohan & Company &Anr.
The plaintiff, SML Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against Mohan & Company &Anr. for infringing its agricultural composition patent (IN'092). The infringement was alleged through the sale and marketing of products under the brand name 'Aladdin'.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.798/CHE/2011) for an invention related to a bearing structure in an internal combustion engine. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art D1 and D2. The High Court set aside the rejection order, emphasizing that a proper obviousness analysis must be conducted before rejecting the application.
Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v.West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation Limited
The appeal challenged an order that treated a Geographical Indication (GI) rectification application as abandoned due to procedural delays. The appellant argued that he had taken steps within the permissible time limits, including obtaining extensions under the GI Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
M/S Applesoft v.The Director General, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Director, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Secretary to Government, Department of Information Technology
M/S Applesoft filed a Regular First Appeal challenging a trial court judgment that dismissed its suit seeking permanent injunction and damages. The plaintiff claimed breach of an implied contract by Defendant No. 1 (C-DAC) related to free distribution of Tamil language software. The High Court upheld the dismissal, primarily finding that the Bengaluru Civil Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.
Novartis Ag v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its registered Indian patent (IN 283133) related to Ribociclib. The court proceeded with various interlocutory applications, including those regarding discovery and stay, while the defendant submitted that it is only engaged in permissible research and development.
Astellas Pharma Inc & Anr. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical Lucius Pharmaceuticals Lao Co Ltd & Ors.
Astellas Pharma Inc and its associates filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Lucius Pharmaceutical for infringing their Indian Patent No. 292990, which covers the new chemical entity GILTERITINIB. The court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience before granting an ad interim ex-parte injunction. This order restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing any product infringing the patent, including under the brand name LUCIGIL.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of their registered Indian patent (No. 283133) related to Ribociclib. The court subsequently heard various interlocutory applications, including those regarding discovery, exemption from mediation, and an application for interim stay.
Celagenex Research India Pvt Ltd v.Pharmak & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its suit patents. The court examined the composition of the impugned products and found that they used exactly the same salt compositions as the plaintiffs' patented formulations. Consequently, the court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction.
Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Anr. v.John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited regarding its online gaming platforms. The court granted permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the plaintiffs' registered trademarks (such as 'PLAYSHIP', 'RUMMY CULTURE') and copyrights related to their website layouts and content. Furthermore, the court directed specific defendants to compel Internet Service Providers and Mobile Network Operators to block numerous identified infringing websites and applications.
Cy International Private Limited & Anr. v.Tejinder Pal Singh Proprietor Of Labh Singh Auto Agencies & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an urgent suit filed by Cy International Private Limited against Tejinder Pal Singh Proprietor Of Labh regarding alleged counterfeiting of vehicle spare parts. The court granted interim relief, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks and copyrighted packaging/trade dress (the 'YELLOW AND GOLD' design). However, the injunction was carefully tailored to permit the defendant to continue using their own specific registered mark in Class 12, balancing protection with commercial activity.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit against Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited regarding the manufacture and sale of an 'impugned drug'. The court addressed various interlocutory applications related to filing documents and pre-institution mediation. In relation to the main suit, the defendants stated they had a license to manufacture but not sell in India, while the plaintiff argued that export of infringing products also constitutes infringement.
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for 'HIGH PERFORMANCE ZIEFLERNATTA CATALYST SYSTEMS.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed process involved an inventive step, specifically regarding the use of diether compounds as internal donors in catalyst production. The High Court ultimately upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was obvious in view of existing prior art documents.
MKU LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. VAIBHAV GUPTA v.ASHISH KANSAL & ANR.
The petitioner filed petitions seeking revocation of two patents (No. 332770 and No. 332684) related to protective ballistic helmets under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice to all respondents and set dates for further proceedings.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field. The court found a prima facie case for trademark and copyright infringement, noting that the defendant continued using protected marks ('Moti Mahal') and associated artistic elements despite the termination of a franchise agreement. Consequently, the court issued a strong injunction directing the defendant to immediately cease use of the impugned marks across all platforms, including menus, invoices, and social media websites.
Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Energeo Works India Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 17, 2025, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The original order refused to grant a patent in respect of Indian Patent Application No. 202211052563.
Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Zeria Pharmaceutical appealed the refusal of its patent application for a novel intermediate compound (formula 5a). The Controller refused the grant, citing lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), and falling within the scope of Section 3(d) due to prior art disclosures. The High Court upheld the Controller's decision.
Junglee Games India Private Limited v.John Doe & Ors.
Junglee Games India Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against unknown parties operating deceptive websites. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications related to the service of process, granting exemptions for advanced service due to the defendants' anonymous nature or the urgency of the relief sought. The court subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with seeking permanent injunctions against online infringers.
Fiacre Telematics Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademark
The petitioner appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Kolkata, arguing that the rejection of their patent application lacked reasoning and failed to address the arguments regarding inventive steps. The court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to its unreasoned nature and remanded the matter.
Orient Electric Ltd v.Polycab India Limited
Orient Electric Ltd filed a suit against Polycab India Limited alleging that its 'Polycab Ceiling Fan Silencio Cruiser' infringes upon Orient Electric's Indian Patent No. 477284, which relates to a twisted compounded plastic blade for ceiling fans. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the Defendant's premises and collect evidence regarding the infringing products and sales.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,' which was denied under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the invention on grounds that its use could cause serious prejudice to human health or public order. ITC argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoned basis, and violated principles of natural justice due to the introduction of unsupplied documents. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh decision after ensuring all parties are heard.
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.