India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 137 of 164 · 4,909 total
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
Ericsson sued Xiaomi for infringing several patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technology used in mobile devices. The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of a prior interim injunction by alleging concealment of material facts. The court found that Ericsson failed to disclose its agreement with Qualcomm regarding CDMA applications, leading to the vacation of the interim order concerning two specific patents.
M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited v.Radhey Shyam Agencies
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited, who is the registered proprietor of the 'ASHOKA' trademark. The plaintiff sought protection against defendants for alleged infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their edible oil products. Given that the plaintiff holds a valid registration and has established a strong prima facie case regarding market confusion, the court restrained the defendants from using the disputed mark pending the final outcome of the suit.
Polycon Industries Pvt. Ltd v.The Union Of India & Ors
The petitioner challenged an order directing it to change its name because the 4th respondent claimed ownership of the trade mark "POLYCON". The court quashed the impugned order, finding that the Regional Director improperly invoked retrospective powers under Section 22 of the Companies Act and failed to consider factors like different product classifications (Class 17 vs Class 19) and distinct geographical markets.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. sought an injunction against Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to hotel branding. The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiff's claim, balanced it against the Defendants' established business success and prior use of similar marks.
M/S Symphony Ltd v.M/S Summer Cool Home Appliances Pvt Ltd
M/S Symphony Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a dispute concerning air cooler designs against M/S Summer Cool Home Appliances Pvt Ltd. The plaintiff sought to clarify discrepancies regarding the dates of use and registration for various registered design models, such as 'Sumo' and 'Winter'. The court examined whether these amendments were necessary for proper adjudication or merely an attempt to resile from previous admissions. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, finding that it served only to clarify existing pleadings without fundamentally altering the nature of the suit.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Psycoremedies Ltd.
The civil suit was filed regarding the alleged infringement of a trademark. The parties subsequently entered into a Memo of Compromise, resolving all disputes between them.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Competition Commission Of India
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson challenged the orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which had initiated investigations based on complaints from Micromax and Intex. The core dispute revolved around whether the CCI possessed jurisdiction to examine claims related to royalty payments for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Ericsson argued that patent-related royalty issues fall exclusively under the Patents Act, 1970, not the Competition Act, 2002. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the jurisdictional boundaries of the CCI in this context.
M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/S.Bajaj Auto Limited
The applications were filed by Bajaj Auto Limited (the defendant) seeking to eschew various documents marked as exhibits in a suit where TVS Motor Company Limited (the plaintiff) claimed non-infringement of Patent No. 195904. The court held that most objections regarding document admissibility could be deferred until the time of final arguments, except for specific objections concerning photocopies and newspaper clippings.
S.K.Janimiya (M/s.Crescent Therapeutics Ltd.) v.Mr.Narender Pal; Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks; Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by S.K.Janimiya challenging an adverse order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the trademark OLAPIN. While noting the petitioner's lackadaisical conduct and delay in presenting evidence, the court ultimately set aside the IPAB's finding that no documents were filed. The matter was remitted back to the IPAB for a fresh examination, allowing them to consider the records and take further evidence.
Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited v.Sulthana Restaurant
The plaintiff, Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited, filed Original Applications seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent, Sulthana Restaurant, from passing off or infringing its registered trade mark 'SULTHAN'S BIRIYANI'. The defendant argued that the names were not deceptively similar, that they cater to different customer classes, and that the name 'SULTANA' is a common universal term. The Court dismissed the applications, finding no deceptive similarity and ruling in favor of the respondent.
Desai Haribhai Jeshangbhai v.Ministry Of Power - Govt Of India
The petitioner, who is a retired Assistant Agriculture Engineer and holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering, filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking assistance with his pending patent application related to electrical power production engineering. The Central Electricity Authority requested details of a working model for the innovation. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner must take further steps to submit a prototype/working model.
Noraris AG v.Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Noraris AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (No. 212815) concerning Vildagliptin API and formulations against Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The plaintiffs initially prayed for a permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and delivery up of stock.
Research Foundation, Sci., Tech. & Eco. & Anr. v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Union of India to challenge patents related to wheat in international forums, citing concerns over biodiversity protection and biopiracy. The court noted that the specific patent challenged had since been revoked by the European Patent Office.
Cipla Limited v.F. Hoffman La Roche Limited
Cipla Limited appealed against a final judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court heard the matter and directed that the case be fixed for final disposal on March 16, 2016. The court also clarified that while existing interim proceedings would continue, no final orders could be passed without its leave.
Jagatjit Industries Limited v.The Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.
The dispute involved a conflict over the trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE'. The appellant (Jagatjit Industries Limited) sought to register an identical mark, leading to opposition by respondent No. 4 (a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard S.A.). The case progressed through various legal challenges regarding the validity and rectification of the registration certificate.
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises v.Sh. Subhash Arora
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for a water jug (No. 235010). The court considered an application for a preliminary injunction, noting that the defendant had previously failed in its attempt to cancel the registration based on prior publication. Given that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without protection, the court granted the interim injunction.
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr v.Bull Machines Pvt Ltd
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a suit against Bull Machines Pvt Ltd, aiming to enhance the suit's valuation and the quantum of damages claimed due to ongoing copyright and design infringement. The plaintiffs argued that despite previous arrangements, the defendant continued manufacturing and selling infringing backhoe loaders. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that commercial disputes require a flexible approach to ensure justice.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. filed a suit for injunction alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its patent. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, noting that while the Single Judge found infringement, the Division Bench had stayed the order due to pending objections under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing parties to continue being governed by an earlier court order.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent No. 236630, which covers the product D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to enhance the valuation of the suit due to market evidence showing widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had challenged the validity and filed a revocation counter-claim, the court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the continuation of the litigation.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Bharat Rasayan Ltd & Anr.
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit against Bharat Rasayan Ltd alleging infringement of Patent No. 225306 concerning the product TRANSFLUTHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint, primarily to enhance the valuation for court fee and jurisdiction, citing market evidence of widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had already challenged the patent's validity through a revocation counter-claim, the Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the suit to proceed with enhanced claims.
Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture v.The Indian Hotels Company Limited
This case involves a dispute over the trademark 'JIVA' between Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture and The Indian Hotels Company Limited. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off. In the present application, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction for rendition of accounts/damages from Rs. 25 lac to Rs. 1 crore, based on re-assessed damages. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that commercial courts should adopt a flexible approach when correcting valuation errors.
Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. v.Ankit Gupta
The plaintiff, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was operating a business using brand names ('Delhi Haat Mall' and 'New Delhi Haat') deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Dilli Haat'. The court found that the defendant's use constituted unfair competition and infringement, leading to the decree of permanent injunction and damages.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Mr Abhijeet And Anr
The case involves a dispute regarding the commercial launch of the product 'RIVAROXABAN' which is subject to the patent IN 211300 held by the plaintiffs. The defendants stated they are not proposing to launch the product during the patent's lifetime.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex patent dispute between F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. concerning Erlotinib Hydrochloride, a life-saving cancer drug. The court examined challenges to the validity of Roche's Indian Patent IN '774, particularly regarding inventive step over prior art (EP '226). While the court found that Cipla had raised credible doubts about the patent's validity, it ultimately restored Roche's suit for injunction but denied the immediate grant due to the approaching expiry date of the patent. Consequently, Cipla was directed to render accounts of its sales.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the jurisdictional scope of an ongoing patent infringement suit (CS No.3812/2014) between Novartis Ag and Cipla Ltd. The core issue was whether the case, despite its low pecuniary valuation, should be transferred to a subordinate District Court under the Commercial Courts Ordinance, 2015. The court ruled that because the defendant had filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, the matter must remain before the High Court's Commercial Division, irrespective of the suit's value.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company & Ors v.Dr.Bps Reddy & Ors
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants regarding infringement of Patent No. 203937 concerning DASATINIB API. The court addressed three applications: one to implead Hetero Labs Ltd., one to delete Dr. BPS Reddy, and one to implead Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland as the assignee. All three applications were allowed.
Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sudhir Bhatia
Midas Hygiene Industries challenged the Copyright Board's order that cancelled its copyright registrations for packaging material used on insecticide chalks. The core dispute revolved around whether the artistic work, when applied to a product, qualified as a 'design' under the Designs Act, thereby triggering the automatic cessation of copyright under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Midas argued that the label was merely an artistic work and not a design in the statutory sense. The Delhi High Court set aside the Board's finding regarding Section 15(2), but remanded the matter for fresh consideration on issues of originality, locus standi, and limitation.
M/s.Mahavir Home Appliances v.The Intellectual Property Appellate Board; The Registrar of Trade Marks; Rallifan Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/s.Mahavir Home Appliances, setting aside an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The core issue revolved around the validity of associated trademarks related to the 'RALLY' mark. A new affidavit submitted by the Registrar of Trade Marks contradicted the IPAB's finding that the marks had lapsed, thereby supporting the petitioner's claim. Consequently, the High Court remitted the matter back to the IPAB for fresh consideration based on the corrected factual position.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd filed an action alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd.'s SERGI 3000 infringes upon CTR's Indian Patent No. 202302, which covers explosion and fire detection technology for electrical transformers. Sergi denies infringement, claiming its product uses different technology, and also challenges the validity of CTR's patent based on prior art.
Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited v.Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited
The suit was filed by Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited against Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Indian Patent No. 189089 related to transformer explosion prevention. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's standing, arguing that their exclusive license agreement was unregistered and therefore invalid under Section 109 of the Patents Act, 1970.
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.