India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 47 of 95 · 2,847 total
Ajay Panwar v.Kishore Chhabra
The appeal involved a request by Ajay Panwar (appellant/defendant No. 2) to stay the execution of an earlier judgment restraining him from using specific machinery. The respondent claimed patent rights over the machinery and copyright protection for drawings related thereto.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The dispute between Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv and Metalex Cryogenics Limited regarding the GEA Patent was settled. Both parties executed a settlement agreement on April 13, 2023, acknowledging the patent's validity and agreeing to specific undertakings.
Alpa Laboratories Limited v.Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.
The court heard arguments regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition filed by Alpa Laboratories Limited, which was based on the apprehension that Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd would institute an infringement suit. The court directed parties to seek instructions and re-notify the matter.
Fmc Corporation v.Adama India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit alleging that the defendants infringed their process patent (IN'645) related to the manufacture of Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons, and set timelines for filing written statements and pleadings.
Titan Umreifungstechnik Gmbh And Co. Kg v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a plastic strapping band. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step and vagueness in claims (Section 10(4)). The High Court found the rejection unreasoned, particularly regarding Section 10(4), and allowed the appeal.
R.H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd v.Sweety Jain, Proprietor Of Mahajan Foods & Ors
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed by R.H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd against Sweety Jain and others regarding alleged breach of an earlier court undertaking. The respondent parties provided a fresh, binding undertaking to the court, promising not to misuse the petitioner's registered trademark 'NAFIS' or its associated copyright in any manner. With both parties agreeing to this resolution, the court formally disposed of the pending litigation.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.J.B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs filed suits seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the drug FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions launched by the defendants under names 'JBCARB' and 'CipFCM'.
Adama Makhteshim Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Adama Makhteshim Ltd appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 201617025525) by the Controller of Patents, which was based on lack of inventive step and clarity/sufficiency of disclosure. The Court found that procedural irregularities vitiated the impugned order because it failed to address all grounds of objection raised in the Hearing Notice.
Vifor (International) Ltd & Anr. v.Cipla Limited
Vifor filed suits seeking permanent injunction against Cipla and J.B. Chemicals for allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex (FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE). The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions of their patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding the patent's nature and previous injunction orders before deciding on the continuation of status quo.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Solitaire Pharmacia Private Limited
The dispute was settled with the acknowledgment of the plaintiff's rights to use the patent related to Sitagliptin. The defendant confirmed they did not engage in any activities constituting infringement during the patent's validity.
Rosemount Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Rosemount Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a 'Process Device with Density Measurement.' The Controller had rejected the patent citing lack of inventive steps based on prior art. However, the Delhi High Court found that the Controller's impugned order was cryptic and failed to provide adequate reasoning or analyze the three essential elements required to determine inventive step. Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration with a mandate for a reasoned decision.
Vexim v.The Controller Of Patents
Vexim appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent application, 'Methods and Apparatuses for Bone Restoration,' which was initially denied due to lack of inventive step. The core issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Patent Office had provided adequate reasoning for this refusal. The court found that the impugned order was cryptic, failing to analyze existing knowledge against the subject invention as required by law. Consequently, the rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for a fresh, reasoned consideration.
Grupo Petrotemex S.A. De C.V. v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 965/DELNP/2006). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step, even though the initial objection raised by the Patent Office related only to novelty. The High Court found that the impugned order went beyond the scope of the original objection and allowed the appeal.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 9677/DELNP/2011), which had been rejected under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to reconsider only the objection raised under Section 3(e).
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Aurobindo Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 216665 against Aurobindo Pharma Limited and the Controller of Patents. The court noted that the patent's term had expired on June 24, 2014, rendering the matter infructuous.
Google Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for capturing panoramic images. The core contention was that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims under Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, leading to an unsustainable rejection order.
Mrs X v.Union Of India And Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a writ petition filed by 'Mrs. X' seeking the removal of her non-consensual intimate images (NCII) from various online platforms. The case details how Mrs. X was victimized after being coerced into paying money, leading to the leakage of explicit photos and videos on pornographic websites. Despite complaints to social media giants like Google and Microsoft, the content remained online. The Court emphasized the need for robust mechanisms to protect victims' privacy and dignity in a patriarchal society. While acknowledging existing legal frameworks under the IT Act, the judgment highlighted the reluctance of intermediaries in implementing these laws effectively. The court issued directions urging all concerned entities to comply with the stipulated provisions.
Agensys Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Asnd Designs
Agensys Inc appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its application under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that their monoclonal antibody invention demonstrated a technical effect (improved affinity/cross-reactivity) not considered by the Controller, thus warranting the setting aside of the impugned order.
Sugen, Inc. v.Mr. K Vijaya Prakash
Sugen, Inc. filed applications alleging that Mr. K Vijaya Prakash and associated defendants willfully violated an injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court in 2016. The original suit concerned the infringement of three patents covering the drug Crizotinib (marketed as Xalkori®). Plaintiffs presented evidence, including photographs and investigator reports, suggesting the manufacturing and sale of the generic product 'CRIZO SPL™' after the injunction was issued. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had control over the infringing entities, leading to a finding of wilful contempt against him.
Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System v.Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited
This commercial appeal challenged an interim order that restrained Tri-Parulex (appellant) from infringing the Plaintiff's Patent No. 202302, which relates to a fire protection system for electrical transformers. The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal, finding no prima facie case of infringement and noting that the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the appellant.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged the position taken by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court found the affidavit filed by the Respondent to be inadequate in reasoning regarding Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the court directed the Controller General to ensure specialized Controllers assist the court on the next hearing date.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706 held by Mylan Laboratories Limited and the Controller of Patents. However, the court noted that the term of Patent No. 205706 had already expired on June 4, 2021.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v.Novartis AG
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212815 titled “N-substituted 2-cyanopyrrolidines” under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous after noting that the patent term had already expired and the petitioner had previously requested withdrawal.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 252762. The court noted that the term of this patent had already expired on February 3, 2014.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the term of the patent had already expired on June 4, 2021.
Abs Global, Inc. v.Cytonome/ST, LLC
Abs Global, Inc. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 240790 granted to Cytonome/ST, LLC. However, the court noted that leave had been granted in another proceeding for the petitioner (and defendants) to withdraw the revocation proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the current petition as withdrawn.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Matrix Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 224634, which was granted to Matrix Laboratories Limited. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 224634 had expired on the date of the judgment.
Lupin Limited v.Dong-A ST Co., Ltd.
Lupin Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 236862 granted to Dong-A ST Co., Ltd. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they would not prosecute the matter further due to the patent's term expiring shortly.
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v.Union Of India
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited challenged the constitutional validity of Section 37A of FEMA, arguing it violated fundamental rights. The dispute centered on royalty payments made by Xiaomi to foreign entities like Qualcomm for Standard Essential Patents used in its mobile phones.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs Patent Office
Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that its method claims were not patentable because they consisted of executable software instructions. The High Court set aside this refusal, citing judicial precedents, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
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.