India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 135 of 161 · 4,815 total
Vishnuprasad Mohanlal Panchal (Alias Ashok Panchal) v.Hitesh Vishnuprasad Panchal
The appeal was filed under Section 19(2) of the Designs Act, 2000 against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that there was an inordinate delay (more than two years) between the conclusion of the hearing and the delivery of the final order regarding registered design no. 222514.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.M/S Best It World (India) Private Limited (iBall)
Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against iBall for infringing its patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies. The court considered arguments regarding the execution of a FRAND agreement and the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents.
Matrix Laboratories Ltd. v.Income Tax
The assessee, Matrix Laboratories Ltd., appealed against the Assessing Officer's order regarding various deductions. A key issue was whether patent infringement income received from Les Laboratories Servier related to 'Perindopril' could be included in export turnover for Section 10B deduction. The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of superannuation contributions.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India And Others
Bayer Corporation appealed an order allowing Nacto Pharma Ltd. (NPL), a compulsory licensee, to export its product 'Sorafenat' outside India for clinical trials. Bayer alleged this violated the terms of the compulsory license granted under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court directed that instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the underlying writ petition be disposed of expeditiously by impleading relevant regulatory authorities.
Sanjeev Goel v.Neelkanth Polytech Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sanjeev Goel against a trial court's rejection of his injunction request concerning trademark infringement and passing off. Although the appellant argued that the trial court failed to consider his claim of passing off, both parties agreed on a path forward: expediting the suit. The court disposed of the appeal by issuing strict directions for the timely filing of evidence and witness testimonies, ensuring the matter could be concluded quickly.
Acme Tele Power Limited v.Intelux Electronics Private Limited
Acme Tele Power Limited filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against Intelux Electronics Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of IP rights. The matter was transferred to the High Court due to a counter-claim for patent revocation under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw all pending suits and the court dismissed the original suit and counter-claim as withdrawn.
Novartis AG v.Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging that Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited was infringing its Indian Patent No. 212815 related to Vildagliptin API and formulations. The dispute was resolved after the defendant submitted an affidavit undertaking to cease all infringing activities, leading the court to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Shilpa Medicare Limited v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company And Ors.
This appeal involved Shilpa Medicare Limited challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a patent infringement suit filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. The core dispute centered on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that Shilpa's manufacturing unit was located outside Delhi. Bristol-Myers argued that the threat of infringing products being sold or offered for sale in Delhi, through generic partners like Natco, established sufficient cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. The High Court upheld the original order, finding no infirmity with the jurisdictional ruling.
Novartis AG v.Union of India
Novartis AG challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which allowed a Miscellaneous Petition filed by Wockhardt Limited. Novartis argued that the IPAB exceeded its jurisdiction and violated procedural rules by permitting additional grounds and documents in the patent revocation case. The Madras High Court upheld the IPAB's decision, finding it within its powers to regulate procedure based on principles of natural justice.
Nacto Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Nacto Pharma Limited challenged the actions of a respondent authority regarding the grant of a patent to another party. The petitioner alleged that the authority proceeded with merit-based objections without first addressing preliminary objections concerning a breach of Patent Rule 55 (4).
S.M.Anand Vel v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs which deemed his patent application abandoned because it was not put in order within the prescribed time. The petitioner argued that since multiple sets of fresh objections were raised during the examination process, the abandonment could not be applied. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Mercury Electronics & Anr
The dispute concerns the validity of several registered patents. The defendant challenged the validity of these patents in their counter-claim. The court addressed the legal issue of who must prove the patent's invalidity.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute centered on whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court ruled that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at that location, they must file there.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute revolved around whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court clarified that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at their location, they must file there.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal v.M/S Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd.
Revenue appealed an order regarding the recovery of demurrage and detention charges from a patent holder (Shri S. Ramkumar) who had executed a bond during customs clearance suspension due to alleged infringement by dual SIM mobile phones. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commissioner (Appeals)' order was correct in allowing the enforcement of the bond for recovering these ancillary liabilities.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr.D. Shah
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Mr. D. Shah and others for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937. The patent covers DASATINIB, an anti-cancer molecule used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Given the defendants' admission of infringement and the risk of irreparable harm, the Delhi High Court allowed the injunction applications, maintaining the status quo during the trial.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr. J.D. Joshi
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937, which covers the anti-cancer drug DASATINIB. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants intended to launch generic products violating their exclusive patent rights. Given the prima facie evidence of infringement and the irreparable harm the plaintiff would suffer, the court granted an interim injunction to maintain the status quo during the trial.
Jasper Motors Private Ltd. v.The Proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw & Ors.
The plaintiffs, holding a patent for an eco-friendly, battery-operated rickshaw design, alleged that the defendants were illegally importing, exporting, and selling the patented idea. Despite the lack of representation from the defendants, the court found them liable for infringing the patent.
M/s.Simco Thread Mills v.The Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, Geographical Indications, Designs
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/s.Simco Thread Mills regarding the delay in processing its application for a change of constitution related to its registered trademark, SIMCO (label). The court directed the relevant Trademark Registry officials to process Forms TM-24, TM-33, and TM-34 pertaining to the trademark expeditiously, ensuring compliance with legal procedures. This ruling provides relief by mandating timely administrative action from the IP authorities.
United Phosphorus Limited v.Ajay Garg And Another
United Phosphorus Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 190476 and 202013, along with claims for damages. The defendants challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party conducted business in Delhi. The Court ultimately ruled that since no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, the plaint was returned to be filed in the appropriate forum.
M/s Best IT World (India) Private Limited v.M/s Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ)
Best IT World (iBall) filed an information alleging that Ericsson, a major holder of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), was abusing its dominant position. The allegations included refusal to identify infringed patents, forcing the Informant into onerous Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and imposing royalty rates contrary to FRAND terms.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
Kanishk Sinha challenged the implementation of an amended notification under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which brought 'E-rickshaws' within its ambit. The petitioner also claimed infringement of his patent related to technology for battery operated e-rickshaws.
The Delhi Network Of Positive People v.Union Of India
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the practice of pharmaceutical companies abusing Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that filing identical divisional patent applications was used to keep patents alive and obstruct access to affordable medicines, particularly ARVs for HIV/AIDS patients. While acknowledging the merit in the grievance regarding process abuse, the court ultimately held that it could not issue directions requiring the Executive to amend statutory rules or interfere with the domain of administrative procedure, instead directing the respondents to consider rule amendments as a representation.
Symphony Ltd v.Wim Plast Ltd & 2
Symphony Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the piracy of its registered designs for Air Coolers. The defendants were accused of marketing and selling products with identical design, shape, and configuration. The court found that a prima facie case was made out in favor of the plaintiff, leading to the continuation of the interim relief.
Suresh Kumar Garg v.Pramod Kumar
Plaintiff, a sole proprietor manufacturing edible oil under M/s Aggarwal Oil Mills, filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendant for infringing his trade mark numeral 1. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and use since 1981, while the defendant argued that '1' is a common expression and denied any similarity or deception.
M/S.Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant challenged the refusal of design registration (Application No. 233798) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller overlooked previous judicial observations regarding consistent application of registration parameters and incorrectly assessed the originality of the bottle design.
Amit Jain v.Ayurveda Herbal & Ors
Amit Jain filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ayurveda Herbal and others for infringing his registered designs used on plastic bottles and tubes for cosmetic products. The plaintiff claimed ownership through assignment of several design registrations. However, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the designs were not novel or protectable under Section 30 of the Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff was penalized for failing to disclose details of a prior withdrawn suit.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Vignesh Refineries
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed suit against M/s.Vignesh Refineries alleging infringement of its registered trademark (GOLD WINEER) and copyrighted pouch design. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of 'SKS GOLD' packaging, which was deemed infringing by the plaintiff. Both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, amicably settling their differences.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
This appeal involved a minority shareholder, Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck, challenging Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) and its Managing Director (Defendant No. 2). The core grievance was that Defendant No. 2 had obtained several patents in his individual name despite using the company's substantial research and development infrastructure and investment. The plaintiff argued these patents belonged to the company, asserting a fiduciary duty breach by the MD. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately rejected the prayer for interim relief, finding no compelling reason to grant protection based solely on apprehension.
Ashim Ghosh v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner challenged the Controller's action of treating his patent application (No. 1350/DEL/2007) as 'Deemed to be Withdrawn'. The withdrawal was based on the assumption that the request for examination was not made within the prescribed period, despite the petitioner having filed Form-18 correctly and within the time limit. The court found that the clerical error in the covering letter did not invalidate the timely filing of the substantive examination request.
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.