India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 163 of 164 · 4,909 total
Hiralal Banjara And Anr. v.Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the term of their patent or grant a new one, arguing that successive applications for extension were permissible. The court held that based on the scheme of the Act, only one application for extension is contemplated, and once an extension is granted, the power for granting further extensions is exhausted.
J. Nageswara Rao v.The State Of Madras
The petitioner challenged the classification of his patented medicine, 'Vitogen', as 'medicated wine' and the associated duties levied under the Madras Prohibition Act. The court examined the scope of the Act and various notifications regarding medicinal preparations. While upholding the liability of 'Vitogen' to pay a specific duty (Rs. 35 per proof gallon) under Notification No. 473, the court declared certain provisions of the Act, including Section 23(2) and Notification No. 941, as ultra vires and unenforceable.
Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. v.Rohtas Industries Ltd.
The suit was filed seeking a perpetual injunction against Rohtas Industries Ltd. and others for allegedly infringing two patents held by Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. The core issue before the court was whether the defendants' manufacturing and sales activities amounted to patent infringement.
Hiralal Banjara v.Bashiram Sharma And Ors.
Hiralal Banjara sought rectification of a patent register entry after the execution sale of his rights was set aside by the High Court. The case involved complex issues regarding the scope of the Controller's power and whether Hiralal Banjara qualified as an aggrieved person.
Gillette Industries Limited v.Yeshwant Brothers
Gillette Industries Limited sued Yeshwant Brothers for infringing a patent related to safety razor blades. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were importing and selling razor blades bearing names like 'Navy Blade' which infringed their patented design. The court found the patent valid, established infringement, and granted an injunction along with nominal damages.
Calico Printers Association Ltd. v.Savani And Co.
The plaintiffs, registered proprietors of a textile design for printing saries, sued the defendants for importing and selling Japanese prints whose borders were identical to their registered design. The court found that the plaintiffs' design was new and original, establishing their exclusive rights in British India.
The Calico Printers Association v.Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Limited
The Calico Printers Association sued Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Limited for importing and selling goods bearing a registered design that was identical to or imitated their protected design without license. The core legal issue revolved around whether the plaintiffs were bound by the statute (Indian Patents and Designs Act, II of 1911) to elect between specific remedies: account of profits, damages, or a fixed sum of Rs. 1,000.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala v.Chimanlal Chunilal And Co.
The plaintiff, holding a patent for an improved process of treating dried fruits, sued the defendants alleging infringement. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendants' process substantially matched the patented combination, particularly concerning the use of pressure.
Dorman Long And Co. Ltd. v.Jagadish Chandra Mahindra And Anr.
The appeal challenged an order by the Controller of Patents refusing subpoenas for expert witnesses. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari or mandatory injunction, arguing they still had the right to present evidence. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Controller's decision was within his discretion and that the petitioners lacked adequate legal remedies.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah
The case involved an appeal regarding a patent application for a process to whiten almond shells. The court examined whether the combination of bleaching powder and sulphur dioxide under pressure constituted an invention, and if the plaintiff was the true inventor. The court ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah
The appeal concerned a patent action regarding a novel chemical process for whitening almonds. The High Court examined whether the process constituted an invention, if the plaintiff was the original inventor, and addressed prior use defenses raised by the defendant's associates. The court ultimately allowed the appeal in favor of the plaintiff.
Mohammad Abdul Karim v.Mahammad Yasin
The plaintiff sued for injunction and damages, claiming exclusive rights over a registered brass tray design (Design No. 43516). The defendants claimed that the design lacked novelty and that the plaintiff was not the true proprietor or author of the design, having learned it from others.
Mohammad Abdul Karim v.Mohammad Yasin And Anr.
The plaintiff sued for injunction and damages against the defendants, claiming exclusive rights over a registered brass tray design (No. 43516). The defense argued that the design was common knowledge and the plaintiff was not the true author or proprietor. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove proprietary rights.
National Carbon Co., Incorporated v.Bright Star Battery Company
The National Carbon Company held Patent No. 17148 of 1930 for dry cell batteries. After initial litigation, they sought to amend their patent specification under Section 17 of the Act. The Bright Star Battery Company opposed this application, arguing that a suit for infringement was pending and an appeal had been lodged against the dismissal of the original suit. The Court ultimately dismissed the amendment application.
Indian Vacuum Brake Co., Ltd. v.E.S. Luard
The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 8018, granted to E.S. Luard, arguing that it lacked novelty and invention, and was anticipated by prior art (Hardy's Patent and existing designs). The court found that the respondent's patent was not an improvement on the petitioner's design and disclosed no invention.
Jwala Prasad v.Raghubir Prasad
The appeal concerned questions arising from a partnership dispute involving patent rights to locks named "Kartoos" and "Impervis." The court addressed the scope of judicial power concerning patent ownership when it arises within a winding-up of a partnership, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Ernest Otto Gammeter v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Gammeter appealed against the cancellation of his watch band design registration by the Controller. The core legal issues were whether the Controller had the authority to cancel the registration based on a third party's application, and whether Gammeter's design constituted a novel invention.
Bhathey Sundara Rajan And Ors. v.A.A. Kuppusami Iyer And Anr.
The appeal concerned an infringement suit regarding the 'Amp hill Patent Loom.' The court addressed whether defendants could raise defenses beyond those specified in the Patents Act, particularly concerning lack of subject matter. Ultimately, the appeals failed because the defendants were unable to discharge the burden of proving prior use before the patent application date.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two original petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking the rectification and cancellation of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan. The court noted that the first respondent had subsequently initiated applications for the cancellation of the disputed registrations before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Since the underlying issue was being addressed through administrative channels, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
Integrace Private Limited v.Mas Pharmachem And Anr
The Bombay High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Integrace Private Limited, restraining Mas Pharmachem from using the trademark 'BON K2 FORTE', which was found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BON - K2'. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff. The defendant's failure to defend the suit and their dishonest conduct were key factors in the court's decision. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry.
Lighthouse Learning Private Limited v.Sandeep Bansal
Lighthouse Learning Private Limited, the owner of the 'Eurokids' trademark, filed a suit against Sandeep Bansal for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an ad-interim relief in favor of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using the 'Eurokids' trademark. The Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, showing that the Defendant had been using the 'Eurokids' trademark without authorization. The court also noted that the Plaintiff had been vigilant about its trademark, having filed several proceedings for infringement and passing off in the past.
Ms Origin Nutrition Private Limited v.Ms Origins Coffee
The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Ms Origin Nutrition Private Limited, restraining Ms Origins Coffee from using the trademark ORIGINS COFFEE, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark ORIGIN NUTRITION. The court found that the defendant's use of the trademark ORIGINS COFFEE was an infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark. The injunction was granted pending disposal of the suit.
M/s.K.R.Bakes Pvt.Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R
M/s.K.R.Bakes Pvt.Ltd. filed a petition to cancel the trademark registration of Pradeep Kumar K.R. The court has initiated proceedings and framed issues for consideration, including prior user, proprietorship, and violation of the Trade Marks Act. The case has been listed after three weeks for further proceedings.
Eternal Limited v.Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Eternal Limited against an order granting an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction in favor of Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited, restraining Eternal Limited from using the mark 'Eternal' or any other mark deceptively similar to Eternl Resilinttech Private Limited's registered trademark. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable and that the remedy available to the appellant/defendant was to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. The court also directed the Trial Court to consider any such application within four weeks and pass appropriate orders on its merits.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc appealed against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their opposition to the registration of the mark GHOST BUSTER. The appellant argued that the mark is similar to their well-known trademark GHOSTBUSTERS and that the respondent had applied for registration in bad faith. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Registrar will now consider the appellant's contentions relating to alleged bad faith and the claim that the mark GHOSTBUSTERS is entitled to protection as a well-known trademark.
Symed Labs Limited v.Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited
Symed Labs Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited for manufacturing and selling Linezolid, allegedly infringing their patents IN 213062 and IN 213063. However, the plaintiff withdrew the suit, and the court dismissed it as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The case highlights the importance of patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry. The plaintiff's decision to withdraw the suit may indicate a settlement or a strategic decision to focus on other legal battles.
Deepak Nitrite Limited v.The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs
The Bombay High Court set aside an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing a patent application for a free-flowing food-grade sodium nitrite and its production method. The court held that the impugned order lacked adequate reasoning and analysis of the rival submissions. The patent application is to be decided afresh within 12 weeks. The court emphasized the importance of passing well-reasoned and speaking orders in patent cases.
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Controller of Patents to reject the patent application of Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. The application was rejected on the grounds of lack of novelty and non-patentability. The court held that the applicant failed to establish the novelty of the invention and that the invention did not meet the requirements of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The court also observed that the applicant had not provided sufficient data to support its claims of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And Anr.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to the pharmaceutical industry and involves a dispute over the validity of a trademark. The court's decision is an interim order and does not provide a final judgment on the matter.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to a pharmaceutical product and involves a dispute over trademark validity.
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.