India Patent Cases
2,823 decisions indexed
Page 42 of 95 · 2,823 total
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Mritunjay Kumar
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Mritunjay Kumar was settled between the parties. The Court accepted the Consent Terms, which were signed by both sides, and consequently disposed of and decreed the suit.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons was settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which included a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and mutual undertakings regarding the destruction of seized goods.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons And Anr.
The dispute between Marico Limited (Plaintiff) and MW & Sons And Anr. (Defendants) concerning alleged infringement was settled on August 18, 2023. The parties entered into a Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Novozymes A/S v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
Novozymes A/S filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No.1691/CHENP/2010. However, the learned counsel for the appellant subsequently instructed the court to withdraw the appeal.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex
The Commercial Suit filed by Unilever Global Ip Limited against Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex was disposed of after both parties reached a settlement. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which resulted in the decree being passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex
The suit between Unilever Global Ip Limited and Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex was disposed of after the parties reached a settlement. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which resulted in a decree being passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888. The petition, which sought to challenge the patent's validity, was contingent on its active status. However, upon submission of a document from the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, it was revealed that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888, which claimed a priority date of January 31, 2003. The petitioner sought this action before the Madras High Court. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888 before the Madras High Court. The petition was filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. v.Guala Closures Patents B.V.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 207928 against Guala Closures Patents B.V. The petition, which was filed under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, aimed to challenge the validity of the patent. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the term of Patent No. 207928 had already expired on June 2, 2018.
Enercon ( India ) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation and removal from the register of various Indian Patents held by Aloys Wobben. The court observed that the term of all the patents in question had expired.
Agfa Nv v.The Assistant Controller of Patents, The Patent Office, Delhi, India
Agfa Nv filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant subsequently filed a memo instructing the withdrawal of the appeal.
Enercon ( India ) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions (TOPs) before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of various Indian Patents granted by the Controller of Patent Chennai. The petitions were filed under Sections 64 and 117D of the Patents Act.
Enercon (India) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking to revoke several Indian Patents granted to Aloys Wobben. The court noted that the patents had expired but a counter claim was lodged by the petitioner in proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the refusal of its divisional patent application, which was rejected on grounds including lack of distinct invention (Section 16) and non-patentability as a computer program per se (Section 3(k)). The court set aside the impugned order regarding Section 16 but remanded the matter to the Respondent for fresh examination specifically concerning the objections under Section 3(k).
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (patents) challenging an earlier order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Akebia Therapeutics Inc. v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications
Akebia Therapeutics Inc. challenged the procedures followed by the Controller General regarding a post-grant opposition filed against its granted patent (IN 287720) for HIF-1α prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor compounds. The Delhi High Court found that the Opposition Board's recommendations were unsustainable due to procedural irregularities in how evidence was presented and processed. Consequently, the court quashed the previous findings, allowed Akebia to lead additional evidence, and remanded the matter back to the Opposition Board for a fresh decision de novo.
Histogen Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and designs
Histogen Inc filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an order passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents and designs regarding Indian Patent Application No. 5341/CHENP/2010. However, the appellant instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Dow Agrosciences Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Dow Agrosciences LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application, 'Stabilized Agricultural Oil Dispersions,' citing errors and inaccuracies in the Controller's objections. The appellant argued that key prior art documents were wrongly cited or misinterpreted, particularly regarding thermal stability claims. Recognizing significant procedural flaws and incorrect references in the impugned order, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh examination.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. v.Sanku Soap Works
Bharathi Consumer Care Products filed a suit against Sanku Soap Works alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiff claimed violations related to the deceptively similar use of their registered trademark 'SILVER FOAM XXX' and copyright in its artistic label/trade dress, as well as passing off. The initial prayers sought permanent injunctions and damages.
Iftikhar Alam v.M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. And Another
The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal filed by Iftikhar Alam, setting aside a prior temporary injunction granted against him by the District Judge. The court found that the trial judge failed to adequately consider crucial evidence, including documents suggesting the plaintiff's rights might have been abandoned or that the defendant was a prior user of the product. Consequently, the case has been remanded back to the trial court for a fresh and detailed hearing on the injunction application.
Upl Limited v.Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association and Anr.
Upl Limited filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenging an earlier order issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademark. The court admitted the appeal, noting that no interim relief was warranted at this stage. The judgment sets out a clear procedural roadmap, directing the appellants to prepare and file comprehensive informal paper books within specified timelines for the matter to be heard on its merits.
Enconcore N.V. v.Anjani Technoplast Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing its patented technology related to folded honeycomb sandwich panels (Therm-Hex technology). The court held an interim hearing, modifying existing injunctions and imposing conditions on the defendants regarding sales reporting and security deposit.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patent Act, 1970, challenging the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs' order dated April 12, 2023, which rejected its application for patent registration.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings in the patent revocation petition (CO (Comm. IPD-PAT) 3/2021) under Section 10 of the CPC, citing a previously instituted suit filed by Respondent 2 (Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH) before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The court analyzed whether a revocation petition and an infringement suit have identical issues and causes of action.
Venator Materials Uk Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Venator Materials UK Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently instructed his counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Venator Materials Uk Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Venator Materials Uk Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order dated 14 December 2020 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appeal sought to set aside that order and allow the patent application No.7188/CHENP/2012 to proceed to grant.
Astellas Deutschland GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Desingns
Astellas Deutschland GmbH filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by The Controller of Patents and Desingns. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Allegro Pharmaceuticals Llc v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Allegro Pharmaceuticals LLC filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to set aside an earlier order and amend its claims to secure a patent. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs
Huawei Technologies Co. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an earlier order passed by Respondent No. 3. The Madras High Court noted that the matter had already been remanded for reconsideration by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in a previous order and closed the appeal without further adjudication.
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.