India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 80 of 95 · 2,847 total
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.
Noraris AG v.Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Noraris AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (No. 212815) concerning Vildagliptin API and formulations against Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The plaintiffs initially prayed for a permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and delivery up of stock.
Research Foundation, Sci., Tech. & Eco. & Anr. v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Union of India to challenge patents related to wheat in international forums, citing concerns over biodiversity protection and biopiracy. The court noted that the specific patent challenged had since been revoked by the European Patent Office.
Cipla Limited v.F. Hoffman La Roche Limited
Cipla Limited appealed against a final judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court heard the matter and directed that the case be fixed for final disposal on March 16, 2016. The court also clarified that while existing interim proceedings would continue, no final orders could be passed without its leave.
Sh. P.C. Roy and Smt. Samita Roy v.The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; M/s S & S Chemical Works
The plaintiffs, who developed a Thermo Reactive Plastic foam Resin based on phenol formaldehyde compositions, sued the Ministry of Defence and M/s S & S Chemical Works for violating their trade secrets. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants leaked this confidential information to defendant no. 3, allowing it to manufacture similar goods. The court found that the plaintiffs successfully proved the leakage of trade secrets but failed to prove the issue regarding rendition of accounts.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. filed a suit for injunction alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its patent. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, noting that while the Single Judge found infringement, the Division Bench had stayed the order due to pending objections under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing parties to continue being governed by an earlier court order.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent No. 236630, which covers the product D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to enhance the valuation of the suit due to market evidence showing widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had challenged the validity and filed a revocation counter-claim, the court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the continuation of the litigation.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Bharat Rasayan Ltd & Anr.
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit against Bharat Rasayan Ltd alleging infringement of Patent No. 225306 concerning the product TRANSFLUTHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint, primarily to enhance the valuation for court fee and jurisdiction, citing market evidence of widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had already challenged the patent's validity through a revocation counter-claim, the Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the suit to proceed with enhanced claims.
Vifor (International) Limited v.The High Court Of Delhi
This writ petition challenged the mandatory transfer of commercial disputes related to five key statutes—Patents, Trademarks, Designs, Copyright, and Geographical Indications—to the Commercial Division of the High Court. The petitioners argued that suits under these specific IP Acts should remain in their original forum, even if the value is below Rs. 1 crore. The court provided an interim order, holding that these cases shall not be transferred, while also directing Single Judges to consider amendment applications as per law.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Mr Abhijeet And Anr
The case involves a dispute regarding the commercial launch of the product 'RIVAROXABAN' which is subject to the patent IN 211300 held by the plaintiffs. The defendants stated they are not proposing to launch the product during the patent's lifetime.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex patent dispute between F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. concerning Erlotinib Hydrochloride, a life-saving cancer drug. The court examined challenges to the validity of Roche's Indian Patent IN '774, particularly regarding inventive step over prior art (EP '226). While the court found that Cipla had raised credible doubts about the patent's validity, it ultimately restored Roche's suit for injunction but denied the immediate grant due to the approaching expiry date of the patent. Consequently, Cipla was directed to render accounts of its sales.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the jurisdictional scope of an ongoing patent infringement suit (CS No.3812/2014) between Novartis Ag and Cipla Ltd. The core issue was whether the case, despite its low pecuniary valuation, should be transferred to a subordinate District Court under the Commercial Courts Ordinance, 2015. The court ruled that because the defendant had filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, the matter must remain before the High Court's Commercial Division, irrespective of the suit's value.
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.