India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 136 of 161 · 4,815 total
Rohini Seeds Private Limited v.Reshma Chemicals Private Limited
The appeal challenged an order that granted a temporary injunction restraining Rohini Seeds Private Limited from using numbers 2222 on its seed packings, based on Reshma Chemicals Private Limited's claim of trademark infringement (R.S.2222). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of confusion or irreparable injury.
M/S Bilcare Limited v.M/S Associated Capsules Private Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a trademark suit (TM-75/2011) against the defendant. The defendant subsequently filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to recall previous orders, primarily to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The court dismissed this application, finding it devoid of merits and intended for dilatory tactics.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for an ad interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals regarding the patented drug Sitagliptin. MSD alleged that Glenmark's products, marketed as Zita and Zitamet, infringed upon its patent (Indian Patent No. 209816), which covers a key molecule used to treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, granting an interim injunction in favor of MSD, thereby restraining Glenmark from further selling or distributing the infringing products while the main suit proceeds.
M/s. Sivanesan & Co. v.M/s. Kanchan Home Appliances and others
The Madras High Court granted an absolute interim injunction in favor of M/s. Sivanesan & Co., who held the registered trademark 'Premier'. The court found that the defendants' use of 'Premier Dezire' constituted both infringement and passing off, causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation. This decision underscores the importance of continuous usage and established market presence when enforcing trademark rights.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Intex Technologies (India) Limited for infringing eight patents related to advanced telecommunication technologies, specifically AMR, 3G, and EDGE. The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The court granted several stringent interim orders, including restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing devices and directing Customs authorities not to allow the import of such products.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel & 2
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel and others concerning Patents Nos. 218301 and 221999. The defendants challenged the validity of these patents by filing a counter-claim for revocation. This order framed various issues, including novelty, inventorship, infringement, and entitlement to injunctions.
Tata Sons Ltd v.Neil Sombuntham & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd, granting a permanent injunction against Neil Sombuntham and others for infringing on the well-known 'TATA' trademark. The court found that the defendant's use of the domain name 'www.tatamassage.com' constituted misappropriation and an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the Tata brand in the global market. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or domain name, and the court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name to the plaintiff.
Atlas Plastic v.C G Enterprise
Atlas Plastic filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against C G Enterprise for infringement of its registered designs. Atlas Plastic subsequently filed an application seeking to amend its plaint to incorporate details regarding the cancellation petition status of one of the defendant's impugned designs.
Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Metro International Cardiac Centre & Ors
The plaintiff, Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd, filed a suit seeking an injunction against the defendants for using the 'METRO' trade name/trademark in respect of medical services. The plaintiff claimed extensive goodwill and reputation associated with its hospitals under the METRO brand. However, the court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the plaintiff lacked a prima facie case and there was no evidence suggesting the defendant was a dishonest concurrent user.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged an order passed by the IPAB granting a plea of revocation made by private respondents. The dispute involved multiple patent infringement suits and corresponding revocation petitions/counter claims. The High Court addressed whether the Supreme Court's ruling on electing one remedy was affected by ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court.
M/S Reino Industrial Organics Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Refnol Resins & Chemicals Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered trade marks (REINOL/RIO-REINOL) and passing off goods under the deceptive mark 'Refnol' or company name REFNOL RESINS & CHEMICALS LTD. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks amounted to infringement and passed off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Bayer CropScience AG v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bayer CropScience AG appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for long-chain inulin. The rejection was based on a lack of novelty and inventive step, arguing that the compound was merely isolated from artichoke roots. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the specific chain length and higher degree of polymerization achieved by fractionalizing the inulin constituted a novel invention with beneficial results.
Gilead Pharmasset, Llc v.Union Of India & Anr
Gilead Pharmasset challenged an order passed by the Patent Office, arguing that it violated natural justice because the decision considered grounds and material from pre-grant oppositions (filed under Section 25) without giving the petitioner a hearing. The court found that the availability of this opposition material created a potential for bias, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. v.RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Blue Cross Laboratories, granting an interim injunction against RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the marks 'CEDON' and 'CEFDON' were deceptively similar, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to combine both causes of action into the suit, dismissing the defendant's attempt to reject the plaint.
Symed Labs Ltd. v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Symed Labs Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was manufacturing and selling Linezolid using processes that infringed upon Symed's registered patents (IN '062 and IN '063). The Plaintiff argued that its patented methods were more economical, safer, and commercially viable than the prior art processes. The court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing the infringing activities.
Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. v.Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for amendment of the cause title, recognizing that the rights in the trademark 'ZOLAM' had been transferred from Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. to Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited via a sanctioned scheme of arrangement. The court found the plaintiff's case unimpeachable and ruled that the successor company was entitled to continue the legal proceedings without delay.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar of PPVFR Authority which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPV&FR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether the development and sale of hybrid seeds from these parent lines invalidated the novelty claim for the original parental lines.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit against Cipla Ltd alleging infringement of its patented drug, INDACATEROL Maleate, used for treating COPD. Novartis sought a permanent injunction to restrain the use and sale of the infringing product. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim application, noting that while the defendant had not applied for compulsory licensing, the grounds under the Patents Act were relevant. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing or selling INDACATEROL Maleate until the final outcome of the suit.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PVPFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Vinod Verma v.State Of Punjab And Ors
The petitioner filed a writ petition regarding alleged patent infringement. The court held that a writ petition was not the appropriate legal remedy for such claims, as the matter required detailed evidence and consideration of facts governed by the Patent Act.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The Plaintiff, a minority shareholder, filed a derivative action alleging that Defendant No.2 (Chairman/MD) obtained and applied for several patents in his individual name instead of in the name of Defendant No.1 (the company). The court examined whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file this suit on behalf of the company.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft appealed against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court found that the authority rendered the decision without granting the petitioner's representative a proper opportunity to clarify objections, despite the petitioner having requested accommodation for his absence. Consequently, the impugned decision was set aside and the matter was remanded for a de novo hearing.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v.The Union of India & Ors.
The writ petitioner challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had revoked his patent for a 'Sealing Device' due to lack of novelty based on US prior art. The petitioner argued that his device possessed novel features, such as a transparent body and ribbed wire. The Calcutta High Court set aside the IPAB's order, finding that the Board erred in its assessment and reliance on expert opinion.
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v.Jamshyad Sethna And Anr
The Delhi High Court permitted Banyan Tree Holding to amend its original suit for passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought to incorporate claims for trademark infringement based on new registrations that occurred during the pendency of the case. The court held that since the registration happened subsequently, and allowing the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy without causing prejudice to the defendants, the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed.
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v.Koninklijke Phillips Electronics
The respondent (Koninklijke Phillips Electronics) sued for permanent injunction against the appellants (Maj. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) regarding infringement of Patent No. 218255. The defendants filed a counter-claim seeking revocation based on the plaintiff's failure to disclose foreign patent applications as required by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the omission was not an unequivocal admission of deliberate suppression and thus revocation is not automatic.
Fdc Ltd. v.Union Of India
FDC Ltd. challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had set aside the Assistant Controller's initial ruling against the petitioner regarding the revocation of Indian Patent No.197822. The core dispute centered on whether IPAB should have decided the merits or remanded the matter, and specifically, whether directing a fresh Opposition Board was legally sound.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors
The application sought permission to export 1 kg of API Sorafenib (Sorafenat), which was manufactured under a compulsory license granted to NPL. Bayer challenged this export, arguing it constituted a commercial transaction and violated the terms of the compulsory license. The Court ultimately held that the export for regulatory approval purposes falls within the exception provided by Section 107A.
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.