India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 138 of 164 · 4,909 total
Inception Media LLP v.Star India Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiff, Inception Media LLP, filed a Notice of Motion alleging copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality against Star India Pvt. Ltd., claiming ownership over a concept note for a TV serial titled "Ye Tera Ghar Ye Mera Ghar". The Plaintiff asserted that this confidential material was disclosed to Star India, which subsequently produced a similar promotional video. However, the Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding copyright and confidentiality.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin, a key drug for Type II diabetes. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing and selling generic versions like Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate under brands such as ZITA. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted infringement of the plaintiff's patent rights.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Messrs Marvellous & Anr.
The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Limited, filed an action alleging infringement of its patent (No. 265864) covering a biocide cartridge used in a gravity-fed water purification device. The court found that the respondent company was dishonestly using the patented cartridge device and granted an order restraining such use.
Retail Royalty Company v.Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Limited
The Delhi High Court partially allowed the appeal concerning trademark infringement between Retail Royalty Company and Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Limited. While the court found that the word marks ('AMERICAN EAGLE' vs 'URBAN EAGLE') were not deceptively similar, preventing a full injunction on the name, it did find that the associated 'Eagle Devices' were deceptively similar. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from using the infringing devices and limited to using only the mark 'URBAN EAGLE', without adding qualifiers like 'AUTHENTIC'.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.K.Balashankar
In a case concerning the salt market, Hindustan Unilever Limited successfully secured a permanent injunction against K.Balashankar after both parties entered into a compromise agreement. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, affirming that the defendant must cease using the deceptively similar mark 'ANANDIPURNA' and its packaging. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to established trademarks and copyrights in the FMCG sector.
M/s Kay Cee Exports v.Nentex Woollens
The petitioner filed a civil revision challenging an order that dismissed the defendant's application for rejection of the plaint. The defendant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction as the suit was barred under the Copyright Act, Design Act, and Patents Act. The High Court found no relief under these Acts was explicitly claimed in the plaint, thus upholding the lower court's orders.
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.
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.