India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 136 of 164 · 4,909 total
R. Muralidharan v.The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice; The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs; The Controller General of Patent and Designs and Trademark
This writ petition challenged a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding PCT National Phase Applications in India. The petitioner argued that this notice restricted applicants from amending their specifications before entering the national phase, thereby denying rights granted under Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act. The core dispute centered on whether procedural restrictions related to filing fees should be subject to judicial review. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that the matter was a procedural issue best left to the experts and the Central Government's power regarding fee determination.
Times Publishing House Ltd. v.Financial Times Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Times Publishing House Ltd. against Financial Times Ltd, addressing challenges related to the validity and rectification of the 'FT' trademark. The judgment clarified the interplay between civil suit proceedings and IPAB rectification petitions under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. Crucially, the court noted that since the IPAB had already ruled in favor of the respondent regarding the mark's validity, the issues raised by the appellant became academic, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.
Controller Of Patents & Designs v.Deputy Registrar, Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Controller of Patents & Designs challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had allowed the appeal of respondents against the rejection of a patent application. The dispute centered on whether the Controller failed to exercise proper discretion, specifically concerning the insufficient fee paid for all claims in the application.
M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The suit was filed by M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. seeking a declaration that its cosmetic composition did not infringe Patent No.169917 and requesting a permanent injunction against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The court found that the subject patent had already expired in 2009, rendering the claims of infringement and the request for an injunction moot.
Merus N.V v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Merus N.V appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 467/CHENP/2011 by the Assistant Controller, which had been based on non-patentability grounds (Section 3(i) and 3(j)). The appellant argued that the amendments were permissible as they merely refined the claim to nucleic acid molecules while retaining the core invention. The High Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the scope of amendments.
M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd v.R.K. Distilleries Pvt Ltd
M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd filed a suit against R.K. Distilleries Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for alleged infringement and passing off of its trademark 'Officer's Choice'. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, registered trademarks across multiple classes, and proprietary rights in the associated trade dress. However, the court ultimately dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, noting that the cause of action arose primarily outside Delhi (e.g., Andhra Pradesh), despite the plaintiff having a branch office there.
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed suit against SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The court granted permanent injunctions in favor of the plaintiff, provided that the defendant was not manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' from November 2015 onwards.
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The defendant submitted that it had stopped manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' in November 2015 due to health hazards associated with Nitrobenzene. The court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against the defendant.
M/S. Selvel Industries v.M/S. Om Plast (India)
The plaintiffs, M/S. Selvel Industries and M/S. Sears Industries, filed a Notice of Motion seeking interim relief in an infringement action against M/S. Om Plast (India). The dispute centered on whether the defendant's plastic container infringed upon the registered designs held by the plaintiffs. The court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to and infringed the plaintiffs' design.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders issued in a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent for explosion and fire detection technology.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four notices of motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit concerning explosion and fire detection technology for transformers. The court examined these 'contempt motions' but ultimately dismissed all four applications.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner, CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd., filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent, Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited, was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt motions,' noting they were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding the original infringement finding.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent on explosion and fire detection technology for transformers.
Kubota Corporation v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Kubota Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2342/CHE/2008), which concerned an 'operation parameter display system for working vehicle fitted with working implement'. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider the technical advancement over prior art and incorrectly applied Section 3(k).
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking procedural reliefs, including a fresh trial schedule and permission to examine additional witnesses. The case involves patent infringement allegations concerning mobile radio communication technology and questions regarding the FRAND status of the patents.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Lava International Ltd for alleged infringement of its patented technologies. The core dispute revolved around Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G telecommunications standards used in mobile devices. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of infringement. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Lava from manufacturing or selling the infringing products, while dismissing a counter-application filed by the defendant.
Akb Jagannath Nag v.Union Of India & Ors.
Akb Jagannath Nag challenged an order from the Controllers of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that subsequent approval under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, should interfere with the impugned order. The court considered this new development but found it necessary for the appellant to approach the Single Judge for review or proceed via appeal.
M/s.Advaith Bio Remedies v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
M/s. Advaith Bio Remedies approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention regarding the undue delay in processing their trademark application for 'BIO CARE' (Application No. 3040849). The petitioner, which manufactures Ayurvedic medicines, argued that the prolonged wait was negatively impacting their business operations. The court intervened by issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to prioritize and dispose of the pending application as expeditiously as possible.
Teva Api India Pvt. Ltd. v.Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp
The respondents sued the appellants alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 209816 for Sitagliptin. The appellants challenged the interim injunction, claiming their manufacturing and exports were solely for Research & Development (R&D) and obtaining global regulatory approvals before the patent expiry in 2022. The court dismissed the appeal but directed the parties to complete pleadings.
R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. Jasola New Delhi v.M/S Action Construction Equipments Ltd. Dudhola & 3 Others
The appeal challenged an order from the Additional District Judge which granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from manufacturing and selling registered designs for tower cranes. The appellant argued that since a ground under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 was raised as a defense, the suit must be transferred to the High Court under Section 22(4).
Shomenath Roy Chowdhury v.Eskag Pharma Private Limited
This case involves a dispute over a patent held by Shomenath Roy Chowdhury for a therapeutic composition used in wound healing, marketed as 'Dresin'. The petitioner alleged that Eskag Pharma Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a similar product under the name 'Sufrate TP', constituting infringement. While the petitioner sought an immediate injunction, the court recognized the need to hear the defense, which primarily argued that the ingredients were well-known in the medicinal field. Consequently, instead of granting an outright ban, the Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the respondent's stock.
Ahmed Hussain. B & Sebille Educations Private Limited v.Sh.Sunil Jethi & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an Original Petition seeking rectification of the Trademark Register. The petitioners, owners of 'LITTLE EINSTEINS' in the education sector, successfully argued that the respondent's subsequent trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINZ,' was deceptively and phonetically similar to their prior registered mark. The court found that the adoption of the impugned mark was an attempt to deceive the public and capitalize on the petitioners' established goodwill, leading to the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The plaintiff (Ericsson) filed a suit for infringement of registered patents against the defendant (Lava International). The court, following directions from the Supreme Court to expedite the trial, addressed an application by the defendant seeking to amend the witness list and change the trial schedule due to the unavailability of expert witnesses. The court granted a conditional adjournment.
M/s Bharat Iron Foundry And Ors v.M/s Sadhu Singh & Sons Iron & Steel Rolling Mills
The Punjab-Haryana High Court overturned an interlocutory injunction that had restricted the defendants from manufacturing and marketing their products without 'collaboration' with the plaintiffs. The court found that the restrictive interpretation of the deed of assignment was unsustainable, especially given the parties' conduct over two decades where the mark was used independently. Consequently, the application for interim relief was rejected, allowing the appellants to continue their operations.
Solmec Earthmovers Equipments v.Registrar Of Trademarks
Solmec Earthmovers Equipments approached the Gujarat High Court seeking directions to restore or renew its trademark 'SOLMEC' (Registration No. 929232). The petitioner argued that a lack of proper documentation had delayed the filing, but confirmed that renewal applications were filed on the day of the petition. The court disposed of the Special Civil Application by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expeditiously consider and pass an order regarding the pending renewal application.
Chandra Sekar v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Chandra Sekar challenged orders dismissing his two patent applications (Nos. 8846/CHENP/2011 and 8907/CHENP/2011) because the request for examination was filed late. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to calendaring errors and negligence on the part of the Indian agent, not his own.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
Genentech Inc. and its affiliates filed suit against the Drugs Controller General of India and others, challenging the approval granted for TrastuRel, a purported biosimilar version of their drug Trastuzumab. The plaintiffs contended that TrastuRel had not undergone adequate testing as required under Indian law before being launched. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining the defendant from marketing the product without proper trials while setting conditions for future regulatory approval.
Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
Roche Products, the originator of the biological drug Trastuzumab (marketed globally under HERCEPTIN®), filed a suit seeking injunction against competitors launching purported biosimilars like CANMAb and HERTRAZ. The plaintiffs contended that these drugs were being misrepresented as 'Trastuzumab' or similar to HERCEPTIN®, without following proper regulatory guidelines for biologics. The court issued an interim order, restraining the defendants from making misleading claims and using proprietary data until the final decision on bio-similarity is reached.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
This appeal concerned the enforcement of a PFA from an arbitration award, which mandated the respondent to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests in specific Indian Patents (Nos. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008) to the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the required deed of transfer, thereby fulfilling its obligation under the PFA.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
The dispute arose from an arbitration award requiring M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation (appellant) to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests of Indian Patents No. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008 to M/S Euro Apex B.V. (respondent). The respondent challenged the execution, but the Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the transfer deed as per the modified request from the respondent themselves.
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.