India Patent Cases
2,823 decisions indexed
Page 27 of 95 · 2,823 total
Structural Integrated Panels Private Limited v.Hexpressions Megatech Private Limited & Anr.
The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing integrated panels, filed a suit seeking the revocation of Patent No. 360834 held by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner claims that the patented technology is identical to its own commercially available product and that the patent claim is factually misleading.
Puneet Chhabra Proprietor Of Rama Wire Industries v.Kewal Krishan Bansal Proprietor Of M/S Vee Pee Bansal And Company
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rama Wire Industries (the appellant) seeking interim protection against a suit brought by Vee Pee Bansal and Company (the respondent). The core dispute involved allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found that the appellant's claim to hold a copyright in its mark was dishonest, noting the striking similarity between the marks. Consequently, the court declined to grant any interim order in favor of the appellant.
Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited (formerly Omeros Corporation) v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant (Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited/Omeros Corporation) filed an appeal challenging the order dated January 31, 2020, which refused its patent application for 'STABLE PRESERVATIVE-FREE MYDRIATIC AND ANTI-INFLAMMATORY SOLUTIONS FOR INJECTION'. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from fees and condonation of delay.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Trademarks
This order in Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson vs Controller General of Patents and Designs deals with a patent application that has technically expired. Despite the expiration, the appellant raised arguments concerning whether telecommunication methods fall under the scope of 'algorithm' or 'business method', which would restrict them under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1997. The court acknowledged this academic issue and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Pharma Mar, S.A. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharma Mar, S.A. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Patent Application No. 202117032003 for "Anti-Cancer Compounds" by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court accepted notice and listed the matter for further hearing.
Dupont Industrial Biosciences Usa Llc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected the grant of a divisional patent application (No. 202118031579). The Appellant argues that the divisional application clearly demonstrates distinct claims, contrary to the Deputy Controller's finding.
Cassiopea Spa v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cassiopea Spa filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 655/DELNP/2010) under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The court granted condonation of delay and set out directions for further proceedings in the appeal.
Schneider Electric Buildings Americas Inc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal challenges the Assistant Controller's order dated January 23, 2024, which rejected Appellant's patent application (No. 6956/DELNP/2014) under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption request and directed parties to file written submissions.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
The court addressed several interlocutory applications. Most notably, it allowed the Plaintiff's application invoking Section 58 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims of Patent IN No. 410993. Notice was served on the Controller and Defendants, setting a date for completion of pleadings.
Pfizer Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product 'LORLATINIB'. The defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling an infringing product under the brand name 'LORBREXEN'.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation appealed an order rejecting its pre-grant opposition against a patent application filed by Tropilite Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the claimed invention was anticipated by prior art, specifically RPC's earlier expired patent (D1). The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that RPC must exhaust statutory remedies available under the Patents Act, 1970.
UPL Limited v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Ors
UPL Limited appealed a decision by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to proceed with its patent application (No. 1378/KOL/2013). The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural flaws, specifically the failure to address expert affidavits and critical technical submissions. The Court set aside the impugned order based on admissions made by the authorities in their affidavit in opposition.
Pinnacle Engines Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Pinnacle Engines Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8612/CHENP/2012) for an opposed piston engine with non-collinear axes of translation, arguing that it provided a technical advance over conventional collinear engines. The court found potential prior art relevant to the inventive features and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa & Anr. v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Helsinn Healthcare filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare Limited for infringing their patent (No. 426553) related to a combination treatment for nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. The court, after considering the promotional material of 'NETUPIN', found that the defendant's product was an integrated combination of the patented compounds, thus making a prima facie case for infringement.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has suppressed information regarding the utilization of the patent and has fabricated invoices to demonstrate its working. The Defendant contests the validity of the Plaintiff's claims and seeks dismissal of the application based on these allegations.
Janssen Sciences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Sciences Ireland appealed the Deputy Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application for 'LONG TERM TREATMENT OF HIV-INFECTION WITH TMC278'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step. The Court noted an inconsistency between the formulation claim and method claims in the application, allowing the Appellant to file a fresh, amended application.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. filed an appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 495/DEL/2013). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1999. The court issued directions for notice and filing of replies.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd
The case involves a patent infringement dispute regarding two products, 'Xyfen' and 'Xyfen Ultra', which are alleged to infringe Indian Patent No. 394568. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Defendant's products.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design which rejected its Patent Application No. 10885/DELNP/2015 for a product treating IBS. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court adjourned the matter.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors. v.Seene Trader & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Sequoia Capital Operations LLC and Peak XV Partners against the alleged fraudster 'Senee Trader'. The court granted several urgent reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed domain name registrars (Dynadot, Gname) to suspend relevant domains and mandated government bodies (MeitY, DoT) and financial institutions (NPCI) to take steps to permanently block or remove access to fraudulent websites, social media accounts, and UPI IDs used by the defendant.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Om Prakash Gupta
In a case concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights, Tata Sons sought judicial assistance to manage seized counterfeit products. The Delhi High Court granted the application, appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the warehouse where 624 packages of fake TATA TEA PREMIUM were stored. This order allows Plaintiffs to draw samples for trial purposes while also granting them liberty to destroy the remaining inventory, ensuring the chain of custody is maintained.
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited filed an appeal against the impugned order dated December 18, 2023, which rejected its patent application No. 20201711947 due to non-appearance on a scheduled hearing date. The appellant sought remand for hearing and condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent no. IN 319780. The appellant argued that since the respondent failed to comply with previous court remands, the High Court should rule on the merits of the case.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated November 9, 2023, which refused its patents application. The court first allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
SRF LIMITED v.SOLVAY S A & ANR.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Respondent No.1, including an application seeking leave to amend the claims of Patent IN 331314 and a request for condonation of delay. The Court allowed the condonation of delay and granted exemptions sought by the respondent.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents for its patent application titled "Hair Dyeing Or Bleaching Method". The appeal was based on procedural infirmities, including the failure to raise objections under Section 3(a) in the hearing notice and the erroneous recording regarding industrial applicability. The Court found merit in these submissions and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, while the Defendant challenged the validity of the patent. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and sought a consent decree.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Novartis Ag And Anr.
Novartis filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine) (ELT-O), leading to an interim injunction against Natco. Natco appealed this order, challenging the validity of IN 233161 on grounds including prior claiming and lack of inventive step under Section 3(d).
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application alleging that the defendant was non-compliant with a prior court order by promoting or advertising the 'Present and Record' feature on its global website, potentially inviting Indian users to circumvent restrictions using VPNs. The Court found that while the feature is not available for download in India (which constitutes compliance), the defendant must take steps to ensure customer care does not suggest or exhort users to use VPNs to access the feature.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed an order dated January 19, 2024, where its patent application (No. 201614010107) for 'Enhanced Aerosol Test for Assessing Filter Integrity' was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs due to lack of inventive step. The court issued notice and set a date for further hearing.
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.