India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 48 of 95 · 2,847 total
Honeywell International Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Honeywell International Inc. appealed a rejection of its patent application for a low-cost programmable HVAC controller, which was denied under Section 3(k) (computer implementational invention exclusion). The Delhi High Court found that the original order lacked adequate reasoning and deliberation from the Joint Controller, merely concurring with the Examiner's finding without providing sufficient justification. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Respondent to take into account relevant judicial precedents.
Bioviz Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Schering Corporation
Bioviz Technologies Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 207233 held by Schering Corporation. The court noted that the term of the patent had already expired on March 24, 2019.
Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corporation v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corporation appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its patent application (No. 6168/DELNP/2013) under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Controller for fresh consideration.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appeal concerns the patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). The court heard arguments regarding the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent was given an opportunity to file an affidavit on whether the subject patent makes a technical contribution or effect.
Matrix Labs. Limited v.Astellas Pharma Europe Bv
Matrix Labs. Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 234753. However, the court noted that the term of the subject patent had already expired on June 25, 2017.
T.A.S. Safraj Khan (USI Traders) v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to S.A.Safiullah by The Controller of Patents. However, the respondent submitted that the term of the patent had already expired, rendering the matter infructuous.
N.Solomon v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents Patent Office
N.Solomon filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to S.A.Safiullah. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
T.A.S. Safraj Khan (USI Traders) v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted by the Controller of Patents to S.A.Safiullah. The first respondent submitted that the term of the patent had expired, rendering the matter infructuous.
G.Daniel v.S.A.Safiullah and Company
G.Daniel filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079 under Section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970, alleging it lacked novelty and/or inventive subject. The respondent submitted that the term of the said patent had already expired.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals filed an appeal against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application. The appellant argued that certain grounds for rejection were not addressed during the hearing notice and pointed out inconsistencies within the rejection order.
B.Kailasam Sole Proprietor of M/s.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts v.S.A.Safiullah an Indian National, trading as Sole Proprietor in the name and style of S.A.SAFIULLAH & CO
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to the first respondent. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed several counter claims filed by counterclaimants seeking the revocation of four specific Indian patents (IN 259932, IN 269929, IN 321300, and IN 300066). The order directed that the counter claims be numbered, notice issued, and written statements filed.
Immunovative Therapies Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents
Immunovative Therapies Ltd. appealed a rejection order dated December 4, 2018, concerning its patent application for 'TH1 VACCINATION PRIMING FOR ACTIVE IMMUNOTHERAPY'. The appellant argued that the rejection based on Section 3(d) and (i) was incorrect, as the invention relates to therapeutic vaccine methods using allogeneic CD3/CD28 cross-linked Thl memory cells.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its Indian Patent Application No. 1435/DELNP/2012. The application, which relates to a co-crystal formulation of Tramadol and Celecoxib, was rejected for lacking novelty and inventive step under Section 3(d) and (e).
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Indoco Remedies Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Indoco Remedies Limited regarding the validity and infringement of patent IN 247381 for Apixaban was amicably resolved through mediation. The defendant acknowledged the patent's validity until its expiry date (September 17, 2022) and confirmed discontinuing all related activities.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Metrochem Api Private Limited regarding patent infringement of Apixaban was amicably resolved through court-mediated conciliation. The parties executed a Settlement Agreement, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that agreement.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
This suit was filed by Sanjay Mehra seeking permanent injunction against Sharad Mehra & Ors. for alleged infringement and passing off related to the 'SUPERON' trademark and associated intellectual property rights. The core dispute revolved around the division of business assets, including IP, between two groups (SM Group and SDM Group) as per a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS). Although the Plaintiff argued jurisdiction over the matter, the Court ultimately found that arbitration was the intended forum for resolving disputes arising from the MOFS and Sale Deed.
Ace Technologies Corp & Ors. v.Communication Components Antenna Inc.
This appeal challenged an interim injunction granted by the Delhi High Court, which restrained Ace Technologies Corp from manufacturing and selling antennae due to alleged infringement of Patent IN240893. The respondent claimed its patent covered a novel asymmetrical beam pattern for fixed antennas used in cellular networks. While the court found no grounds to interfere with the core interim relief, it modified the financial compliance terms, allowing the respondents to deposit a bank guarantee instead of cash.
Trex India Pvt. Ltd. v.Cde Asia Limited
The dispute originated from a suit for permanent injunction filed by Cde Asia Limited against Trex India Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of its Patent No. 3072491 and Design No. 2626292 concerning the product 'FM 120 CONEXUS'. The present appeal challenged the Single Judge's order, but the High Court dismissed the appeal on a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability under the Commercial Courts Act.
S. N. Biri Factory Private Limited v.Mukesh Chand Khandelwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning artistic works used in matchstick branding, where the Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1's new copyright was deceptively similar to their existing registered designs and trademarks. Despite the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights initially rejecting the objection, the Court found prima facie evidence suggesting imitation of unique features and misappropriation of phrases like 'शहे नशाह मािचस NO. 99'. Consequently, the High Court granted a stay on the effect of the impugned copyright registration while the matter proceeds.
Cellresearch Corporation Pte Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges an order rejecting Cellresearch Corporation's divisional patent application (No. 10875/DELNP/2013) based on lack of distinct invention from its parent application (No. 1492/DELNP/2007). The appellant argues that the rejection is invalid because the objections raised in the parent application had already been complied with.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc And Others v.Clevus Lifesciences and others
The plaintiffs, exclusive licensees of the patent holder for Indian Patent No. 232231, filed a suit alleging infringement by defendant No. 1 and others who were manufacturing and offering Canagliflozin tablets under brand names like Adkana. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against generic drug manufacturers, including Vee Excel Drugs, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of all interim injunction applications.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, seeking permanent injunctions against infringing Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin as the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v.Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Pub)
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed cross-appeals concerning the validity and infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecom technology. The court affirmed that Ericsson's patents were prima facie essential and infringed, finding Intex to be an unwilling licensee. Despite arguments regarding SEPs being unknown in Indian law, the court upheld the necessity of FRAND compliance to ensure parity with global implementers.
Ifp Energies Nouvelles v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Ifp Energies Nouvelles appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 1373/CHE/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Chennai. The appellant argued that the rejection order was non-speaking and failed to consider their submissions or prior acceptance in the USA. The High Court agreed, finding that the material contentions were ignored.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies seeking permanent injunctions for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for granting interim relief. Furthermore, the court expressed concern regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at 'evergreening.' Consequently, all applications for injunction were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sought permanent injunctions against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, alleging infringement of Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across multiple connected suits. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting concerns about potential patent vulnerability due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling the products.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against Indian pharmaceutical companies for allegedly infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the suit patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts by the plaintiffs towards 'evergreening.' Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex dispute involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Ericsson and Intex. The court examined whether the patents were essential, if Intex was infringing them, and if Intex had acted as an unwilling licensee despite Ericsson's FRAND commitments. Ultimately, the court found that the patents were prima facie valid and infringed, compelling Intex to pay the full royalty amount.
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.