India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 43 of 95 · 2,847 total
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oyster Point Pharma Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs Anr.
Oyster Point Pharma Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller, which cited prior art under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the mono-citrate salt demonstrated enhanced efficacy and stability, supported by experimental data filed during prosecution. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider this crucial evidence regarding efficacy and stability.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application (No. 7059/DELNP/2011). The dispute centered on whether the parent application (No. 6114/DELNP/2005) truly disclosed multiple inventive concepts, which is a prerequisite for filing a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Neptune Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and distributing generic versions of Sitagliptin under the trade name 'HAPPY JAAN M', infringing Indian Patent No. 209816. Although the suit patent had expired, the court decreed the suit against Defendant 2 based on its failure to file a response, directing it to pay damages.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Others
Qualcomm appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected their patent application (No. 5159/DELNP/2007) primarily citing Section 3(k) and lack of definitiveness. The High Court found that the rejection order suffered from manifest non-application of mind as it failed to address the appellant's submissions, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Bharatiya Janata Party Kisan Morcha, Andhra Pradesh Unit v.Monsanto Technology, LLC
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 232681 held by Monsanto Technology. The first respondent submitted that the term of this patent had already expired on June 5, 2022.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on the terms agreed upon in the Consent Minutes of Order.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The Defendant agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/- towards costs and full and final settlement, leading to the suit being disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on the terms of the Consent Minutes of Order.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties in the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, Unilever Global Ip Limited, based on the terms agreed upon in the Consent Minutes of Order.
Sml Limited v.Mohan & Company & Another
Sml Limited filed a suit alleging that defendants are manufacturing and selling a fertilizer composition named 'Aladdin' which infringes upon its granted Indian Patent No. IN 282092. Chemical analysis confirmed the defendant's product contained sulphur (67.8%) and zinc oxide (22.7%), falling within the patented range. The court found a prima facie case of infringement.
Sml Limited v.Mohan & Company & Another
Sml Limited filed a suit alleging that defendants are manufacturing and selling a fertilizer product named Zeeka Sulf, which infringes upon its Indian Patent No. IN 282092. The plaintiff provided chemical analysis reports and expert opinions confirming that the composition of Zeeka Sulf falls within the scope of the patented claims.
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
Vifor International Ltd., a patentee, filed suit against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited regarding the alleged infringement of its patent (IN'536) covering the manufacturing process of Ferric Carboxylmaltose (FCM). The court examined whether the defendants' processes infringed upon Vifor's patented method for producing this intravenous iron complex. The judgment ultimately found that the impugned processes used by the defendants were non-infringing, allowing them to proceed with launching their product.
M/s. Adwaith Lakshmi Industries Limited v.Mylsamy Ranga Ramanujam
M/s. Adwaith Lakshmi Industries Limited filed an Original Petition seeking the rectification or revocation of Patent No. 262529, alleging it was invalid and obtained by misrepresentation. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the petition.
Novartis AG v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Novartis AG appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding an opposition filed under Section 25(2) concerning Patent No. 223313. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 223313 had expired on May 16, 2023.
Humanity Life Extension Llc v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner, a US-based medical device manufacturer, challenged the amendment to Rule No. 138 of the Patents Rules, 2003, arguing that it removed the provision allowing extension of time for international patent applications and conflicted with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The petitioner sought directions to entertain its National Phase Application despite missing the deadline.
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.