India Patent Cases
2,823 decisions indexed
Page 79 of 95 · 2,823 total
M/S Rspl Limited v.Mukesh Sharma & Anr
This appeal challenged a single judge's decision that dismissed an IP suit based on lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant, M/S Rspl Limited, had filed the suit under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act seeking injunction against alleged infringement and passing off by the respondents using the name 'GHARI TRADEMARK COMPANY'. The High Court Division Bench overturned the single judge's ruling, affirming that the court has jurisdiction given the plaintiff's corporate office and business activities within Delhi.
Merus N.V v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Merus N.V appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 467/CHENP/2011 by the Assistant Controller, which had been based on non-patentability grounds (Section 3(i) and 3(j)). The appellant argued that the amendments were permissible as they merely refined the claim to nucleic acid molecules while retaining the core invention. The High Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the scope of amendments.
Chambal Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd v.C.C.E., Jaipur I
The appellant, engaged in fertilizer manufacturing, was assessed service tax on agreements with foreign service providers for design and consultancy services. The Department argued these fell under IPR services. The Tribunal ruled that since the technical know-how and engineering designs were not recognized as IPR under any Indian law at the time of the agreement, there was no taxable IPR service.
M/S Impact Metals Ltd., Bollaram v.M/S Msr India Ltd., Hyderabad
The Civil Revision Petition arose from a lower court's dismissal of an application seeking arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents sought permanent injunction and damages based on alleged infringement of proprietary technology, designs, trade secrets, and trademarks. The Court held that the entire dispute was arbitrable under the Manufacturing Agreement.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr. v.Techno Plast & Ors.
Dart Industries Inc, through its licensee Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement of their proprietary designs and copyrights related to the popular 'Tupperware' storage containers. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants were copying these unique designs, leading to confusion in the market. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead and prove the distinctiveness of the product shape for trademark purposes, thereby lacking prima facie strength in their claims regarding design protection, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The defendant submitted that it had stopped manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' in November 2015 due to health hazards associated with Nitrobenzene. The court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against the defendant.
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed suit against SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The court granted permanent injunctions in favor of the plaintiff, provided that the defendant was not manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' from November 2015 onwards.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders issued in a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent for explosion and fire detection technology.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four notices of motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit concerning explosion and fire detection technology for transformers. The court examined these 'contempt motions' but ultimately dismissed all four applications.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner, CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd., filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent, Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited, was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt motions,' noting they were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding the original infringement finding.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent on explosion and fire detection technology for transformers.
Kubota Corporation v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Kubota Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2342/CHE/2008), which concerned an 'operation parameter display system for working vehicle fitted with working implement'. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider the technical advancement over prior art and incorrectly applied Section 3(k).
Manugraph India Limited v.Simarq Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors.
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed preliminary issues concerning jurisdiction in two separate suits involving intellectual property rights. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action arose outside its local limits, citing precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court clarified the jurisdictional regimes under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, emphasizing that while plaintiffs have options to file suit, they cannot abuse these provisions by filing in a remote location lacking both defendants and a cause of action. Consequently, the court held that it possessed jurisdiction over both suits.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking procedural reliefs, including a fresh trial schedule and permission to examine additional witnesses. The case involves patent infringement allegations concerning mobile radio communication technology and questions regarding the FRAND status of the patents.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Lava International Ltd for alleged infringement of its patented technologies. The core dispute revolved around Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G telecommunications standards used in mobile devices. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of infringement. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Lava from manufacturing or selling the infringing products, while dismissing a counter-application filed by the defendant.
Akb Jagannath Nag v.Union Of India & Ors.
Akb Jagannath Nag challenged an order from the Controllers of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that subsequent approval under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, should interfere with the impugned order. The court considered this new development but found it necessary for the appellant to approach the Single Judge for review or proceed via appeal.
Teva Api India Pvt. Ltd. v.Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp
The respondents sued the appellants alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 209816 for Sitagliptin. The appellants challenged the interim injunction, claiming their manufacturing and exports were solely for Research & Development (R&D) and obtaining global regulatory approvals before the patent expiry in 2022. The court dismissed the appeal but directed the parties to complete pleadings.
Shomenath Roy Chowdhury v.Eskag Pharma Private Limited
This case involves a dispute over a patent held by Shomenath Roy Chowdhury for a therapeutic composition used in wound healing, marketed as 'Dresin'. The petitioner alleged that Eskag Pharma Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a similar product under the name 'Sufrate TP', constituting infringement. While the petitioner sought an immediate injunction, the court recognized the need to hear the defense, which primarily argued that the ingredients were well-known in the medicinal field. Consequently, instead of granting an outright ban, the Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the respondent's stock.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The plaintiff (Ericsson) filed a suit for infringement of registered patents against the defendant (Lava International). The court, following directions from the Supreme Court to expedite the trial, addressed an application by the defendant seeking to amend the witness list and change the trial schedule due to the unavailability of expert witnesses. The court granted a conditional adjournment.
Chandra Sekar v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Chandra Sekar challenged orders dismissing his two patent applications (Nos. 8846/CHENP/2011 and 8907/CHENP/2011) because the request for examination was filed late. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to calendaring errors and negligence on the part of the Indian agent, not his own.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
Genentech Inc. and its affiliates filed suit against the Drugs Controller General of India and others, challenging the approval granted for TrastuRel, a purported biosimilar version of their drug Trastuzumab. The plaintiffs contended that TrastuRel had not undergone adequate testing as required under Indian law before being launched. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining the defendant from marketing the product without proper trials while setting conditions for future regulatory approval.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
The dispute arose from an arbitration award requiring M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation (appellant) to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests of Indian Patents No. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008 to M/S Euro Apex B.V. (respondent). The respondent challenged the execution, but the Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the transfer deed as per the modified request from the respondent themselves.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
This appeal concerned the enforcement of a PFA from an arbitration award, which mandated the respondent to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests in specific Indian Patents (Nos. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008) to the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the required deed of transfer, thereby fulfilling its obligation under the PFA.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
Ericsson sued Xiaomi for infringing several patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technology used in mobile devices. The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of a prior interim injunction by alleging concealment of material facts. The court found that Ericsson failed to disclose its agreement with Qualcomm regarding CDMA applications, leading to the vacation of the interim order concerning two specific patents.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Competition Commission Of India
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson challenged the orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which had initiated investigations based on complaints from Micromax and Intex. The core dispute revolved around whether the CCI possessed jurisdiction to examine claims related to royalty payments for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Ericsson argued that patent-related royalty issues fall exclusively under the Patents Act, 1970, not the Competition Act, 2002. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the jurisdictional boundaries of the CCI in this context.
Wind World (India) Limited v.Enercon GmbH
Wind World (India) Limited challenged an arbitral tribunal's order that directed them to produce documents and granted interim measures. The dispute arose from various agreements, including the Intellectual Property Licensing Agreement. The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it contrary to law.
M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/S.Bajaj Auto Limited
The applications were filed by Bajaj Auto Limited (the defendant) seeking to eschew various documents marked as exhibits in a suit where TVS Motor Company Limited (the plaintiff) claimed non-infringement of Patent No. 195904. The court held that most objections regarding document admissibility could be deferred until the time of final arguments, except for specific objections concerning photocopies and newspaper clippings.
Ritika Private Limited v.Biba Apparels Private Limited
Ritika Private Limited filed a suit against Biba Apparels Private Limited claiming infringement of copyright and violation of trade secrets related to its garment designs sold under the RITU KUMAR brand. The plaintiff asserted originality in its sketches and drawings, which were adapted for various garments. However, the court found that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as the designs were capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, but had not been so registered.
emami limited v.patanjali ayurved limited
Emami Limited sued Patanjali Ayurved Limited for infringement of its registered trademark 'Kesh King' and design of a bottle, alleging that Patanjali’s ‘Kesh Kanti’ was deceptively similar and copied the bottle design, creating confusion among consumers. The Petitioner claimed significant turnover (Rs. 305.44 Crores) after acquiring rights to both the trademark and design.
Desai Haribhai Jeshangbhai v.Ministry Of Power - Govt Of India
The petitioner, who is a retired Assistant Agriculture Engineer and holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering, filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking assistance with his pending patent application related to electrical power production engineering. The Central Electricity Authority requested details of a working model for the innovation. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner must take further steps to submit a prototype/working model.
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.