India Patent Cases
6,441 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 215 · 6,441 total
Steigerwald Arzneimittlewerk Gmbh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application (No. 1285/DEL/2009) on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The invention relates to a method for producing a plant-based medicament, Iberogast, which requires a specific mixing sequence for stable quality. The High Court found infirmities in the Controller's order regarding the reasoning under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter.
Trutech Machinery v.Controller of Patents & Anr.
Trutech Machinery challenged the Assistant Controller's order allowing a patent application for an improved round corner cutting machine. The Petitioner raised objections under Section 25, including anticipation and lack of inventive step. The Court found no legal error in the summary inquiry conducted by the Controller and directed the Petitioner to seek revocation under Section 64.
Saint Gobain Tm Kk v.Assistant Controller Opf Patents And Designs
Saint Gobain Tm Kk filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order issued by the Assistant Comptroller of Patents and Designs regarding patent application no. 201717018424. The court accepted notice and granted time for the respondent to file written submissions, listing the case for further hearing.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
Largan Precision Co. Ltd filed a suit seeking an interim injunction and disclosure of sales against Motorola Mobility India Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. TN 395095. The court allowed notice to the defendants and listed the matter for further consideration.
OCV Intellectual Capital Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application for a high-performance glass fiber composition that achieves S-glass properties at a lower manufacturing cost. The Controller rejected it based on lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentable subject matter. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to consider key arguments regarding technical advancement and synergistic effect.
Natco Pharma Limit v.Novo Nordisk A/S And Ors.
The petitioner, Natco Pharma Limit, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in products that infringe their Indian Patent No. 426553, specifically mentioning the brand name NYKRON. The court accepted notice and directed the defendants to file a reply within two weeks.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appellant, Kba Notasys Sa, challenged an impugned order issued by the Controller General of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to apply established guidelines for determining inventive step and did not properly assess the invention described in their drawings. The respondent contended that the claimed invention was not patentable as it was covered by existing prior art.
Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah v.Lyka Bdr International Limited
The applicant filed an Interim Application in aid of Execution Application seeking the execution of an award dated November 15, 2023. The court granted directions requiring the respondent to disclose all particulars of their assets, including intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks), within four weeks.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal was filed against the Joint Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition. The respondent argued that the amended claims were already covered by the parent application and did not meet statutory requirements, citing prior art.
Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.Aquestia Limited
Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. appealed a Single Judge's decision which held that its product, Hydromat Valve (an FCV), infringed Patent IN 4270503 of Aquestia Limited. The appellate court found errors of principle in the lower judgment regarding claim interpretation and fundamental differences in technology between the two valves.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
E.R.Squibb & Sons LLC challenged the recommendation made by the Opposition Board regarding Patent No. IN340060, arguing that the board failed to consider crucial evidence submitted by the patentee during post-grant opposition proceedings initiated by Zydus Healthcare Limited. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the recommendation is only a suggestion for the Patent Authority, the petitioner could raise these objections during the final decision-making process or appeal.
Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl Proprietor, M/S Pearl Engineering Company & Anr. v.Koninklijke Philips Nv
The appeals challenged the Single Judge's decree awarding substantial damages against the appellants (Maj Retd. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) for infringing Patent IN 2182555 held by Koninklijke Philips Nv. The court adjudicated applications seeking stay of execution of this judgment and decree.
Sanjay Mehra v.Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors.
In a significant trademark dispute, Sanjay Mehra successfully secured a decree against Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors. through an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Defendants acknowledged that all rights to the 'SUPERON' mark belonged exclusively to the Plaintiff and agreed to cease all use of the mark, including preventing future registrations or similar usage. This resolution allows the suit to be decreed in favor of the Plaintiff while also granting a refund of court fees due to the early settlement.
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v.Mr Shahjahan Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of The Ritz Hotel Limited and its subsidiaries against Mr. Shahjahan Khan and others. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, recognizing the established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'Ritz' mark. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'RITZ RIVERIA' across various media, pending further hearings.
Bunch Microtechnologies Pvt Ltd v.Telegram Fz Llc & Anr.
In an amicable resolution, the Delhi High Court disposed of the copyright infringement suit filed by Bunch Microtechnologies against Telegram Fz Llc. The parties successfully negotiated and formalized a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing how complaints regarding content infringement must be handled. This SOP mandates specific proof requirements from complainants, such as demonstrating ownership of copyright or trademark, before Telegram takes action. The court upheld this agreement, binding the defendant to the terms while granting the plaintiff a partial refund of court fees.
Surface Logix Llc & Ors. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical Lucius Pharmaceutical(Lao) Co. Ltd & Ors.
Surface Logix LLC and its associates filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Lucius Pharmaceutical for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 291914, titled 'PHARMACOKINETICALLY IMPROVED COMPOUNDS'. The court addressed various procedural applications, including granting exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the patent and directed Defendant No. 2 (an online platform) to delist all advertisements related to the generic product 'BELUMOSUDIL' or brand name 'LuciBelu'.
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr v.M/S Steel India & Ors
The Plaintiffs, holding patents related to a corrugated construction element and its manufacturing method, filed a suit against the Defendants for infringement. The court found merit in the Plaintiffs' submission and passed orders restraining the Defendants from dealing with infringing materials.
Myokardia Inc. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical
Myokardia Inc. filed a suit against Lucius Pharmaceutical alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 392872, which covers novel pyrimidinedione compounds used to treat serious cardiovascular diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The Plaintiffs argued that the defendants' generic product infringed upon their patented technology and caused irreparable harm. Based on a prima facie assessment, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling generic Mavacamten until further hearing.
Ganraj Enterprises v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing the Respondent No. 1 to file several additional documents in the ongoing trademark litigation. The application sought modification of a prior order, primarily to bring on record evidence concerning the change of ownership of trademarks and detailed arguments regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between the parties' marks. This procedural step allows the court to consider complex issues related to assignment dates and examination objections.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Motherkind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mankind Pharma Limited against Motherkind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Motherkind's use of 'MOTHERKIND' prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, given its similarity to Mankind's well-known marks ('MANKIND' and 'KIND') in the pharmaceutical sector. This preliminary order restrains the Defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Marico Limited v.Essen Products India Limited
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of Marico Limited against Essen Products India Limited. The court allowed a leave petition to combine claims for passing off with trademark and copyright infringement. Based on prima facie evidence, the court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to Marico's well-established brands (Parachute and Nihar) and depicted in pirated artwork. Consequently, an injunction was issued preventing the defendants from using similar marks or trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
Novartis A.G. v.YY
The Plaintiffs, Novartis A.G. and its affiliate, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 419280. The court granted several interlocutory orders, including an interim injunction and exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Terre Primitive & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by the Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation (AMUL) against Terre Primitive. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Amuleti' was identical and deceptively similar to AMUL's well-known mark, leading to potential consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted interim relief, directing the defendant to cease using the infringing marks, take down products from their website, surrender materials for destruction, and block specific social media URLs.
Triology Solutions Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private L Imited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Triology Solutions Private Limited against various online sellers (Defendants 12-23) for trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the distinctiveness of the 'Muuchstac' brand, which is used for cosmetic products, and restrained the defendants from using its registered device mark and trade dress/packaging. Furthermore, the court directed the major e-commerce platforms (Defendants 1-11) to ensure takedown actions are taken against counterfeit listings and mandated disclosure of sales revenue by the infringing sellers.
SNV Aviation Private Limited v.Alaska Aviation Academy Private Limited and Others
SNV Aviation Private Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of impersonating the company to run fraudulent job scams. The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions and directed immediate action against digital assets, including suspending infringing domain names like akasaairltd.com. Furthermore, the court mandated financial institutions and telecom providers to disclose KYC details and block bank accounts and UPI IDs linked to the perpetrators, providing robust protection against trademark misuse and fraud.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'DERMDOC' brand. While granting several procedural exemptions to the plaintiffs, the court also issued significant interim relief. Specifically, it directed Scribd Inc. (Defendant No. 17) to immediately remove all documents associated with the infringing trademarks from its platform. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was ordered to disclose details of commissions earned through the alleged infringement period.
UPL Limited And Anr v.Royal Agro Tech And Ors
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringement related to agricultural chemicals, specifically concerning an Indian Patent and Trade Mark. The court granted several applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, while directing the execution of Local Commissions to inspect infringing products.
Somany Ceramics Limited v.Hsil Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by Somany Ceramics Limited seeking the removal and cancellation of a specific registered device mark, 'A Somany Enterprise,' belonging to Hsil Limited. The core ground for the relief was non-use, as the applicant successfully argued that the respondent had never commercially used the impugned mark in relation to the goods specified under Class 16. Given the respondents' concession regarding the lack of commercial use, the court directed the removal of the mark from the Trade Marks Register.
M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation v.Goramal Hari Ram Limited
The Delhi High Court modified a previous order that had dismissed the petitioner's applications for filing additional documents. After arguments, both parties reached a consent agreement allowing M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation to amend its Written Statement to include details of two preceding trademark registrations ('MONKEY 555 WONDER WASH' and 'MONKEY 555 THUNDER WASH'). This amendment allows the petitioner to argue that their prior rights should dismiss the plaintiff's infringement claim, subject to payment of costs.
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.