India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 161 · 4,815 total
Hindustan Pesticides Manufacturer Association v.Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. & Anr.
The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to revoke or cancel Indian Patent IN420915, which relates to a Water Soluble Granular Insecticidal Composition. The court issued notices to the respondents and granted time for them to file their replies.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed an application seeking directions for the inspection of heat exchanger plates manufactured by the Defendant and taking on record relevant documents. The Court, relying on Section 115(1) of The Patents Act, appointed a Scientific Advisor to conduct an inspection and provide a detailed report comparing the impugned products with Patent No. 322307.
Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the rejection of an application (No. 5547423) by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that it was deemed abandoned due to non-filing of a counter statement against opposition No. 1323716. The appellant argued they were never properly served with the notice of opposition, as proof of actual receipt via email was lacking. The Court held that without proof of actual receipt, the time limit for filing the counter statement does not run, and consequently, the application cannot be deemed abandoned.
Alone Trust v.Union of India and others
This Public Interest Litigation addressed the persistent issue of improper use of the State Emblem of India in various fields, particularly trade and commerce. The court recognized that despite existing legislation like the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, misuse continued due to a lack of public awareness. Consequently, the High Court issued comprehensive directions to the State Government of Odisha to establish a Task Force, create SOPs, and develop an online reporting portal to ensure responsible usage.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The suit concerned alleged infringement of Patent No. 229051 by the Defendant regarding Valsartan and Sacubitril products. Since the subject patent IN'051 expired, the parties reached an amicable settlement which was recorded by the court.
UPL Limited v.Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its patent application for 'HERBICIDAL COMBINATIONS' based on pre-grant opposition grounds (lack of novelty/inventive steps). The core grievance was that the respondent authorities failed to provide the appellant with separate opportunities of hearing under Sections 14 and 25(1) of the Patents Act, leading to a violation of natural justice.
Yangtze Memory Technologie Co Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the grant of its patent application, arguing that it was prevented from filing a necessary divisional application due to the timing of the grant. The petitioner claimed diligent efforts and intent to file the division before the grant. However, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioner attempted to file the divisional application after the grant date.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Jfe Steel Corporation challenged an order from The Controller of Patents & Designs that refused its patent application (No. 115/MUMNP/2015). The petitioner argued that the rejection was based solely on non-compliance with Section 10(4) without examining novelty or inventive step. The High Court agreed, finding the rejection legally flawed.
Wacom Company Limited v.Cirel Systems Private Limited
Wacom Company Limited filed this Civil Petition seeking the appointment of a local commissioner to collect documents and testimony from Cirel Systems Private Limited. This evidence is required for pending patent infringement proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention, 1970.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking leave to place additional public documents on record. These documents included various patents and ISO standards related to fasteners and coating methods, which were deemed highly relevant for proper adjudication of the issues raised in the Counter Claim.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking permission to introduce additional public documents, which were identified as relevant prior arts pertaining to various patents. The Court allowed the submission of these documents, noting their relevance despite the late filing, subject to payment of costs.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking leave to place additional public documents on record. These documents included various patents and prior arts related to fasteners, washers, and coating methods. The Court allowed the filing of these documents, noting their relevance despite initial procedural delays.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking permission to introduce additional public documents and prior arts related to various patents. The Court allowed the application, noting that despite insufficient reasons provided initially, the documents were public domain and highly relevant to the issues in dispute.
Pawan Kumar Surana v.S M Ravi @ Pushparaj; M/s.Sri Sai Enterprises
The plaintiff, an inventor associated with Rain Filter Industries, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling tank filters that infringed upon his patented invention (Patent No. 351773). The court found infringement and granted permanent injunction against the defendants.
Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Provivi, Inc. challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application based on alleged non-receipt of hearing notices and lack of a reasoned decision. The petitioner argued that it was denied an opportunity to be heard before the refusal order dated 30.05.2023 was passed. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and lacked reasons, setting it aside.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent application number 279/DEL/2015. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of Patent Application IN'563 on grounds of lack of inventive step. The application relates to an air-cooling system for pre-cooling ambient air using a mist of water in an HVAC system. The High Court found the impugned order unreasoned and failed to follow the five steps required for determining obviousness, leading to the remand of the matter.
Topotarget Uk Limited v.The Controller General Of Patent And Designs, Mumbai and Ors.
Topotarget UK Limited appealed a rejection order against its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition (PXD101 with an in situ salt former). The rejection was based on insufficiency of disclosure, lack of inventive step, and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court found that the Controller misconstrued the invention as a salt per se, failing to consider the multi-component nature of the composition.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application (No. 201717022856) due to lack of inventive step. The appellant sought permission to amend its claims, which were subsequently accepted by the High Court provided they did not broaden the scope of the original claims.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 202018041017) by The Controller of Patents. The court first condoned a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and subsequently granted time to both parties for written submissions before listing the matter again.
Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mold-Tek Packaging Limited
Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd filed a suit for infringement against Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd regarding two patents related to pail closure systems and tamper-proof lids. The dispute reached the Delhi High Court, where appeals were heard concerning the validity of the patents and the status of interim injunctions.
Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. v.Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Canva appealed a single judge's decision that had granted an interim injunction against its 'Present and Record' feature, alleging infringement of Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited's Indian Patent No. 360726. The appeal challenged the finding of infringement and the direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rekin Pharma regarding trademark infringement, passing off, and domain name misuse. The core dispute revolved around the similarity between 'REXCIN' (Petitioner) and 'REKIN-SP' (Respondent), particularly concerning pharmaceutical goods in Class 5. The court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish continuous use of REXCIN as a source identifier for Class 5 products.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Faiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim
The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Sware Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute arose from an injunction decree concerning the unauthorized use and fabrication of machines designed for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders (Anondita Healthcare) sought to maintain attachment of a second machine during execution proceedings, alleging violation of their design rights. The High Court ruled that the executing court cannot undertake fresh substantive inquiry into IP infringement, setting aside the order maintaining the attachment.
P V Anand Kishore v.M/S Bhatt Electronics (P) Ltd.
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged an order that held M/S Bhatt Electronics liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000 in damages for infringing registered designs and trademarks related to emergency lights. The original suit was filed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Designs Act. While the appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of manufacturing or sales linking them to the infringement, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding. The court concluded that since there was no denial by the defendant regarding the sale of the product, the liability for damages could be inferred from the facts and circumstances.
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd v.The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller's decision refusing its divisional patent application for 'PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF PEMETREXED'. The refusal was based on the prior refusal of the mother application. However, since the mother application was subsequently granted, the High Court found the reason for refusal no longer tenable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh for infringing Patent No. 209816, which covers SITAGLIPTIN. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding substantial compensatory, exemplary, and costs damages.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The suit was filed alleging infringement of Patent No. 269841 (IN'841) by Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd regarding the compound Ruxolitinib. After discussions, the Defendant provided an undertaking that they would not commercialize the patented compound during the patent's validity. The court accepted this undertaking and disposed of the suit on consent terms.
Jesal Vimal Jetha v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the Controller's refusal of a patent application for a customizable comforter system, citing failure to meet objections under Section 2(1)(ja). The appellant argued that the decision was mechanical and violated natural justice due to procedural irregularities in handling prior art documents. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter 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.