India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 164 · 4,909 total
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application. The rejection was based on alleged scope changes and reliance on the parent application's claims. The High Court found that the divisional application should be treated as a substantive application, not bearing on the outcome of the parent, thus setting aside the impugned order.
Cyril Bath Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors
Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Oura Health Oy & Anr.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Femilab Healthcare
The applicant sought an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, however, noted that the subject patent had already expired, leading to the vacation of the existing interim protection.
Titan Company Limited v.M/S Bihani Jewellers & Anr.
Titan Company Limited filed a suit against M/S Bihani Jewellers & Anr., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks, copyrighted images, and registered designs associated with the 'Tanishq' brand. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants were using these proprietary assets on their website and social media to sell jewellery products. After considering the submissions, including an undertaking from the Defendants, the court decreed the suit.
Frimline Private Limited v.K-Smatco Lifesciences Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants are infringing upon their patented pharmaceutical composition, IN 382949, and also copying content from the Plaintiffs' website. The Suit Patent covers a synergistic combination of Lactoferrin and Guanosine Nucleotide for treating anaemia. Based on the prima facie evidence presented, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from marketing or selling the infringing product 'FERROTOK PLUS', while also allowing interim protection for the Plaintiffs' copyright.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Femilab Healthcare & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an application seeking permanent injunction to restrain Femilab Healthcare from infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Novartis v. Natco), observed that the patent in issue had already expired. Consequently, the interim protection granted earlier was vacated.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Motocorp Limited in its suit against Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with inspecting and ascertaining the value of infringing products bearing similar designs and trade-dress of Hero Engine Oil, allowing for their seizure on Superdari. This order reinforces the court's willingness to grant immediate protective measures against alleged design and trademark infringement.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Chembott Chemicals And Pharmaceutical Private Limited and Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Chembott Chemicals. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case regarding the infringement of its registered trademark, 'COBADEX', by the defendants' mark, 'COZIDEX'. Given the nature of pharmaceutical products and the potential for irreparable harm to both parties and the public, the injunction was granted immediately until the next hearing date.
Urban Money Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Urban Money Private Limited appealed a trademark opposition decision before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Registrar's rejection of its 'URBAN MONEY' application. The appellant argued that the opposing party's claim of prior use was unsubstantiated by external evidence. While the case proceeds toward mediation and further arguments, the court granted an interim stay on the impugned order, providing immediate protection to the trademark applicant.
Syngene International Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & The Controller of Patents
Syngene appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method predicting organ toxicity. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty and inventive step, particularly regarding the requirement of novel hardware for CRIs. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the contribution lies in software and directing reconsideration based on updated guidelines.
Jyothy Labs Limited v.Gautam Kumar & Anr.
Jyothy Labs Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Gautam Kumar & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, addressing alleged infringement of its flagship 'MAXO' brand mosquito repellent product. The court recognized that the defendants were manufacturing and selling spying cameras embedded within or bearing deceptively similar marks to the plaintiff's registered products. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from dealing in these infringing goods and ordered to remove all related listings and advertisements from major e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha, the patent holder of e-rickshaws/e-vehicles, appealed a judgment that had previously directed registration authorities to register these vehicles. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha appealed against an order that disposed of a writ petition filed by e-rickshaw manufacturers seeking registration authority direction. The original dispute involved the patent holder (appellant) seeking damages and injunctions against infringers for manufacturing without a license. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ashok Kumar (Unkown)
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Crucially, the court ordered a local commission to be conducted to inspect and inventory all infringing products bearing deceptively similar marks, thereby strengthening the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction.
Amgen Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Amgen Inc. appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that claims 1-13 of Patent Application No. 5857/CHENP/2008 were not patentable due to various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the claimed invention satisfied all requirements for protection and directing that the application proceed to grant.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Shilpa Medicare Limited
The suit was filed by Pharmacyclics Llc seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of Registered Patent No. 262968 by Shilpa Medicare Limited. The parties subsequently entered into a successful settlement agreement through mediation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its mark PETKIND in Class 5, citing similarity to a prior application 'PETKIND PHARMA'. The Appellant argued that its extensive goodwill and established 'KIND Family of Marks' should prevail. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr v.Anthem Biosciences Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking to restrain the Defendant from dealing in products that infringe their patent (IN 294424) related to Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including those for document production and exemption from mediation. In the main application for interim injunction, the Defendant provided an undertaking not to launch infringing products.
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register a trademark application. The core issue revolves around whether a cited mark had been properly assigned to the appellant before the refusal order was issued. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for both parties, indicating that the matter is proceeding through the appellate process.
K.Gobinath v.Anugraha Valve Castings Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the framing of issues in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioners argued that the court failed to frame an issue regarding the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'Anugraha' trademark registration, which they claimed was based on fraud and common usage. However, the High Court ultimately allowed the petition partly by directing the Commercial Court to frame specific additional issues concerning the validity of the mark.
Cipla Limited v.Union Of India Through Department Of Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cipla Limited, directing the Trademark Registry to allow the renewal of its 'TRIEXER' trademark. The core finding was that the Registry failed to serve the mandatory statutory 'O3 notice' required under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Despite the trademark having lapsed and the petitioner failing to file timely renewals, the court emphasized this procedural lapse by the Respondent, granting Cipla a chance to regularize its mark.
Officine Maccaferri S. P. A. v.Techfab India Industries Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an injunction and account of profits against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from pre-institution mediation and condonation of delay in filing replies.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The petitioner, Bisleri International Private Limited, sought interim relief against the respondent for infringing its trademarks and copyrights concerning packaged drinking water. The court granted ad-interim injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks and artwork, and also allowed leave to combine the passing off claim with the infringement suit.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Priti Rajawat, Sole Proprietor Of M/S ...
Bisleri International Private Limited filed an Interim Application seeking further ad-interim relief against Priti Rajawat for alleged infringement of its trademarks (BRISLERI), copyright in its label/packaging, and design/shape. The court noted that previous interim orders were granted but had not been served on the Defendants. Consequently, the court ordered service of the relevant order before hearing and disposing of the current application.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, filed an interim application seeking injunctions against the defendant for infringing its trade marks (BISLERI) and copyrights. The court granted ad-interim relief restraining the defendant from using similar marks, artwork, and designs on packaged drinking water products.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted Dabur India Limited to amend its trademark cancellation petition against Marico Limited. The amendment corrected an inadvertent error where the petitioner had mistakenly stated that their mark was 'deceptively similar' to the respondent's mark, contrary to their actual legal stand. The court allowed the correction, emphasizing that the change did not alter the cause of action or prejudice the respondent, thereby upholding the principle of rectifying clerical errors in pleadings.
Caterpillar Inc. v.Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Caterpillar Inc. filed a suit against Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented and designed fluid filter systems used in construction and mining machinery. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing these rights. Furthermore, the court permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect premises, seize infringing goods, and take samples for analysis.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking the appointment of a scientific expert to determine their alleged infringement of the suit patent. The plaintiff objected, stating that the application was filed after evidence had concluded and the matter was nearing final arguments.
Rajkumar Sabu v.Sabu Trade Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajkumar Sabu challenging the acceptance and subsequent advertisement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' in favor of Sabu Trade Private Ltd. The petitioner sought to quash the acceptance report, arguing that the application was based on fabricated documents and should not proceed without hearing him. However, the Court found that the petitioner's interlocutory petition lacked statutory basis and noted that he already had a remedy available through lodging an opposition under the Trademark Act.
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.