India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 82 of 95 · 2,847 total
M/s Best IT World (India) Private Limited v.M/s Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ)
Best IT World (iBall) filed an information alleging that Ericsson, a major holder of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), was abusing its dominant position. The allegations included refusal to identify infringed patents, forcing the Informant into onerous Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and imposing royalty rates contrary to FRAND terms.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
Kanishk Sinha challenged the implementation of an amended notification under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which brought 'E-rickshaws' within its ambit. The petitioner also claimed infringement of his patent related to technology for battery operated e-rickshaws.
The Delhi Network Of Positive People v.Union Of India
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the practice of pharmaceutical companies abusing Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that filing identical divisional patent applications was used to keep patents alive and obstruct access to affordable medicines, particularly ARVs for HIV/AIDS patients. While acknowledging the merit in the grievance regarding process abuse, the court ultimately held that it could not issue directions requiring the Executive to amend statutory rules or interfere with the domain of administrative procedure, instead directing the respondents to consider rule amendments as a representation.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Vignesh Refineries
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed suit against M/s.Vignesh Refineries alleging infringement of its registered trademark (GOLD WINEER) and copyrighted pouch design. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of 'SKS GOLD' packaging, which was deemed infringing by the plaintiff. Both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, amicably settling their differences.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
This appeal involved a minority shareholder, Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck, challenging Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) and its Managing Director (Defendant No. 2). The core grievance was that Defendant No. 2 had obtained several patents in his individual name despite using the company's substantial research and development infrastructure and investment. The plaintiff argued these patents belonged to the company, asserting a fiduciary duty breach by the MD. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately rejected the prayer for interim relief, finding no compelling reason to grant protection based solely on apprehension.
M/s.Varsha Productions v.Shivaji Rao Gaikwad
The appeal arose from an interlocutory order concerning a suit filed by the respondent, Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (Rajinikanth), seeking to restrain M/s.Varsha Productions from using his name, image, or style in their film project 'Main Hoon Rajinikanth'. The parties subsequently reached a settlement.
Ashim Ghosh v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner challenged the Controller's action of treating his patent application (No. 1350/DEL/2007) as 'Deemed to be Withdrawn'. The withdrawal was based on the assumption that the request for examination was not made within the prescribed period, despite the petitioner having filed Form-18 correctly and within the time limit. The court found that the clerical error in the covering letter did not invalidate the timely filing of the substantive examination request.
M/S Bilcare Limited v.M/S Associated Capsules Private Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a trademark suit (TM-75/2011) against the defendant. The defendant subsequently filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to recall previous orders, primarily to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The court dismissed this application, finding it devoid of merits and intended for dilatory tactics.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for an ad interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals regarding the patented drug Sitagliptin. MSD alleged that Glenmark's products, marketed as Zita and Zitamet, infringed upon its patent (Indian Patent No. 209816), which covers a key molecule used to treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, granting an interim injunction in favor of MSD, thereby restraining Glenmark from further selling or distributing the infringing products while the main suit proceeds.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Intex Technologies (India) Limited for infringing eight patents related to advanced telecommunication technologies, specifically AMR, 3G, and EDGE. The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The court granted several stringent interim orders, including restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing devices and directing Customs authorities not to allow the import of such products.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel & 2
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel and others concerning Patents Nos. 218301 and 221999. The defendants challenged the validity of these patents by filing a counter-claim for revocation. This order framed various issues, including novelty, inventorship, infringement, and entitlement to injunctions.
M/S Rspl Health Pvt. Ltd. v.Giani Ram Mittal & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement of its trade mark XPERT and copyright, claiming prior adoption in respect of laundry products. The defendants countered by asserting their own established use of the 'SAGAR' trademark and arguing that the marks were dissimilar. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Societe Des Produits Nestle, .S.A. v.Sapan Kumar Bhatia & Ors
In this Delhi High Court case involving Nestle and Sapan Kumar Bhatia, the parties reached an amicable out-of-court settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The defendants acknowledged Nestle's ownership rights over the 'MAGGI' trademark, domain name (www.maggi.in), and copyright in the logo and label. Consequently, the court allowed a compromise application, decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms, which included a final payment of ₹2,00,000/- from the defendants to the plaintiffs.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged an order passed by the IPAB granting a plea of revocation made by private respondents. The dispute involved multiple patent infringement suits and corresponding revocation petitions/counter claims. The High Court addressed whether the Supreme Court's ruling on electing one remedy was affected by ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court.
Bayer CropScience AG v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bayer CropScience AG appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for long-chain inulin. The rejection was based on a lack of novelty and inventive step, arguing that the compound was merely isolated from artichoke roots. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the specific chain length and higher degree of polymerization achieved by fractionalizing the inulin constituted a novel invention with beneficial results.
Gilead Pharmasset, Llc v.Union Of India & Anr
Gilead Pharmasset challenged an order passed by the Patent Office, arguing that it violated natural justice because the decision considered grounds and material from pre-grant oppositions (filed under Section 25) without giving the petitioner a hearing. The court found that the availability of this opposition material created a potential for bias, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Symed Labs Ltd. v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Symed Labs Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was manufacturing and selling Linezolid using processes that infringed upon Symed's registered patents (IN '062 and IN '063). The Plaintiff argued that its patented methods were more economical, safer, and commercially viable than the prior art processes. The court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing the infringing activities.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar of PPVFR Authority which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPV&FR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether the development and sale of hybrid seeds from these parent lines invalidated the novelty claim for the original parental lines.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit against Cipla Ltd alleging infringement of its patented drug, INDACATEROL Maleate, used for treating COPD. Novartis sought a permanent injunction to restrain the use and sale of the infringing product. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim application, noting that while the defendant had not applied for compulsory licensing, the grounds under the Patents Act were relevant. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing or selling INDACATEROL Maleate until the final outcome of the suit.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PVPFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Vinod Verma v.State Of Punjab And Ors
The petitioner filed a writ petition regarding alleged patent infringement. The court held that a writ petition was not the appropriate legal remedy for such claims, as the matter required detailed evidence and consideration of facts governed by the Patent Act.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The Plaintiff, a minority shareholder, filed a derivative action alleging that Defendant No.2 (Chairman/MD) obtained and applied for several patents in his individual name instead of in the name of Defendant No.1 (the company). The court examined whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file this suit on behalf of the company.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft appealed against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court found that the authority rendered the decision without granting the petitioner's representative a proper opportunity to clarify objections, despite the petitioner having requested accommodation for his absence. Consequently, the impugned decision was set aside and the matter was remanded for a de novo hearing.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v.The Union of India & Ors.
The writ petitioner challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had revoked his patent for a 'Sealing Device' due to lack of novelty based on US prior art. The petitioner argued that his device possessed novel features, such as a transparent body and ribbed wire. The Calcutta High Court set aside the IPAB's order, finding that the Board erred in its assessment and reliance on expert opinion.
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v.Koninklijke Phillips Electronics
The respondent (Koninklijke Phillips Electronics) sued for permanent injunction against the appellants (Maj. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) regarding infringement of Patent No. 218255. The defendants filed a counter-claim seeking revocation based on the plaintiff's failure to disclose foreign patent applications as required by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the omission was not an unequivocal admission of deliberate suppression and thus revocation is not automatic.
Fdc Ltd. v.Union Of India
FDC Ltd. challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had set aside the Assistant Controller's initial ruling against the petitioner regarding the revocation of Indian Patent No.197822. The core dispute centered on whether IPAB should have decided the merits or remanded the matter, and specifically, whether directing a fresh Opposition Board was legally sound.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors
The application sought permission to export 1 kg of API Sorafenib (Sorafenat), which was manufactured under a compulsory license granted to NPL. Bayer challenged this export, arguing it constituted a commercial transaction and violated the terms of the compulsory license. The Court ultimately held that the export for regulatory approval purposes falls within the exception provided by Section 107A.
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.