India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 140 of 164 · 4,909 total
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.
Narendra Srivastava v.Ashok Chaturvedi
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging groundless threats based on a pending patent application held by defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 sought to be struck out as a party, arguing he had assigned his rights and was not involved in the alleged threat. The court dismissed this application, holding that since the claim derived from defendant no.1's original application and he resided within the court's jurisdiction, he remained a necessary party.
M/S.Grp Dairy Food Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court resolved a dispute between M/S.Grp Dairy Food Pvt. Ltd. and S.Sudhakar concerning the trademarks 'Udhayam' and 'GRB Udhayam'. The parties reached an amicable settlement through mediation, resulting in a Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petitions by allowing the trademark registrations to continue, provided certain conditions outlined in the compromise are incorporated into the registry.
Merck Serono S.A. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Merck Serono S.A. challenged the Controller of Patents & Design's decision to declare its patent application abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that it had actively pursued the application by responding to both the First and Second Examination Reports. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that active pursuit negates abandonment.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.Ramesh Chopra & Ors.
Instapower Ltd., dealing in energy-efficient lighting under the Insta Power brand, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and declaration that Defendant No. 4's claims regarding sole ownership of LED aviation obstruction light patents were false. The dispute centered on conflicting patent rights concerning LED Aviation Obstruction Lights (AOL).
V2 Corp & Anr. v.Innovative Techpack Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and delivery for infringement of their registered JAR designs. The defendant challenged an ex-parte interim order restraining it from manufacturing or selling products with identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's designs. The court modified the existing interim order to allow the defendant limited use of certain features while maintaining the rest of the injunction.
NRB Bearings Limited v.Windsor Export
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of NRB Bearings Limited against Windsor Export, finding that the latter was infringing on its trademark and goodwill through deceptive use of a similar domain name. The court held that the defendant's minor spelling variant ('nrbearing.com') was intentionally chosen to attract customers associated with the plaintiff's well-known mark 'NRB'. Given the prima facie case and the risk of irreparable confusion, the injunction was granted during the pendency of the suit.
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v.Themis Medicare Ltd. and Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Neon Laboratories Ltd. against Themis Medicare Ltd. and Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the Defendants' use of the 'XYLOX Family' marks was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established 'LOX Family' marks, despite the addition of the prefix 'XY'. Consequently, the Court issued an injunction restraining the Defendants from using the rival marks and ordered the appointment of a Court Receiver over the infringing goods.
Symed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Sharon Bio-Medicine Ltd. And Ors.
Symed Laboratories filed a suit for permanent injunction against Defendants, alleging infringement of their patents (IN 213062 and IN 213063) related to novel processes for preparing Linezolid. Defendant No. 3 moved an application seeking amendment of its written statement, arguing that it was merely purchasing the product from the market and not manufacturing it using the patented process. The Court partly allowed the amendment.
Novartis Ag And Ors. v.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 212815, which covers the compound Vildagliptin for treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Plaintiffs claimed that despite no immediate launch by the Defendant, its listing of Vildagliptin as an API on its website posed a significant threat to their market share. Considering the potential infringement and the balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Ranbaxy from manufacturing or selling products containing Vildagliptin.
Manmohan Plastic Pvt. Ltd. v.Ganpati Plastic Industries & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief regarding the use of the 'MONICA' trademark. The court found that despite the petitioner holding a registered mark ('MONICA GOLD'), the respondents could demonstrate prior and continuous user of similar marks ('MONIKA') dating back to 1986, predating the plaintiff's claimed usage date. Consequently, the court declined to grant an injunction but mandated the defendants to maintain and submit quarterly sales accounts for all products sold under the disputed trademark.
Arif Abdul Kader Fazlani v.Hitesh Raojibhai Patel & Co & 1
The plaintiff sought permission to withdraw the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2012. The court granted this permission, disposing of the main suit as withdrawn. However, the defendants' counterclaim, which sought the revocation of Patent No. 226534 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, was held to survive for adjudication.
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.South Konkan Distilleries
The Plaintiff, holding a registered trademark 'TANGO PUNCH', filed suit alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling country liquor in bottles embossed with the Plaintiff's trade mark. The Plaintiff claimed this constituted infringement and passing off. The Court found that the Defendant's use fell squarely within Section 29(3) of the Act, leading to the grant of injunctions.
Mr. Gigaram M.Patel v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Mr. Gigaram M.Patel appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding the cancellation of a registered design (No. 225589). The High Court set aside the original order, finding that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to produce the complete set of Yellow Pages necessary to establish the date of publication.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc. v.Indiamart Intermesh Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction alleging infringement of their patent (IN 200572) related to mobile communication handover decisions by the defendants, who manufacture and sell telecommunications equipment like Base Station Controllers. The court disposed of the application regarding the ad interim stay.
M/s.Vijay Industries v.Vijay Solvex Limited
M/s. Vijay Industries appealed against the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dimapur's order which returned their plaint. The suit alleged infringement of the 'SCOOTER' trademark and associated artwork by Respondent No. 1 (Vijay Solvex Limited) and its agent. The core dispute revolved around whether the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the lower court's decision regarding jurisdiction.
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v.MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted temporary relief in favor of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited against MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd., finding that the abbreviation 'M & M' enjoys protection as a registered trademark. The court issued a comprehensive injunction preventing the defendants from using the impugned marks, similar domain names (like www.mandmstores.in), or passing off their goods and services as those of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was mandated to delete 'MNM' from its corporate name within four weeks.
Bayer Corporation v.Union of India Through The Secretary; The Controller of Patents; Natco Pharma Limited
Bayer Corporation challenged the order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which upheld the Controller's decision to grant a Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited. The license was granted for Bayer's patented drug, Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar), used in treating various cancers.
Salzer Electronics Limited v.S.G.Controls & Switchgear (P) Ltd.
Salzer Electronics Limited appealed against a single judge's order that dismissed its applications seeking temporary injunctions regarding alleged infringement and passing off of its registered patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it lacked necessary details and discussion on the merits of the case.
Dr. Aloys Wobben and another v.Yogesh Mehra and others
Dr. Aloys Wobben (Appellant) filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others (Respondents), who were also filing revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court examined whether these two actions could proceed concurrently.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Yogesh Mehra
Dr. Aloys Wobben filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others, despite them having already filed numerous revocation petitions before the IPAB challenging his patents. The Supreme Court addressed whether these two proceedings could run concurrently.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application challenging a prior ex-parte injunction restraining M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling a respiratory protection device, which was claimed to infringe Patent No. 211175 held by 3M Innovative Properties Company. The court examined the prima facie case presented by the plaintiff regarding the infringement of their patented flat-folded personal respiratory device. Given that the defendant had been using the impugned device since April 2011 and had made considerable investments, the court found the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries challenged an order that returned its patent infringement suit against Natco Pharma Limited, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The core dispute revolved around whether the process patent infringement claim was limited only to exports from Hyderabad or if it extended to the apprehension of marketing within Delhi. The court held that since the plaint pleaded an apprehension of sale/marketing in Delhi, the court possessed jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored.
Nokia Corporation v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel
Nokia Corporation filed a suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement against Bharat Bhogilal Patel, who claimed that Nokia's use of laser marking technology infringed his patents. The court examined evidence showing that the laser engraving process is a known and available technology since 1957, and found that the defendant's actions were groundless threats.
Whirlpool Of India Ltd v.Videocon Industries Ltd
Whirlpool, a manufacturer of washing machines, sued Videocon Industries for infringing its two valid design registrations (Nos. 223833 and 223835) through the 'Videocon Pebble' brand, alleging that the Defendant's product was visually indistinguishable from theirs. The dispute also involved whether infringement or passing off actions could be maintained against a party who held a registered design.
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.