India Patent Cases
2,823 decisions indexed
Page 83 of 95 · 2,823 total
Consolidated Contractors International Company S.A.L. v.Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd & Ors
This case addressed an application filed by Consolidated Contractors alleging wilful disobedience of a court order, specifically regarding the continued use of their logo by the defendants. The plaintiff had sought permanent injunctions for passing off and copyright infringement. The court examined whether the usage was intentional or merely inadvertent, referencing established legal precedents on contempt.
Venkatraman Das v.M/s.Vns Innovations Pvt. Limited
This civil suit was filed by Venkatraman Das seeking permanent injunction against M/s.Vns Innovations Pvt. Limited for allegedly infringing his registered patent on a 'Disposable Armpit Perspiration Pad' (Patent No. 181248). The defendants challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the product was old and lacked novelty or inventive step. After examining the prior art, the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any genuine innovation over existing knowledge. Consequently, the suit for infringement and rendition of accounts was dismissed.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The dispute involved multiple suits where both parties objected to each other's advertisements, alleging disparagement. The ads compared products like Dettol antiseptic liquid, Vim cleansing liquid, Lifebuoy soap, and Dettol cleaning liquid regarding their germ-killing or protective effects.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that certain patents belong to Defendant No. 1 and requesting Defendant No. 2 to assign them without compensation. The applicants, who hold shares in Defendant No. 1, sought impleadment as party defendants, arguing the suit was a derivative action benefiting minority shareholders. The court dismissed the Chamber Summons, finding that the interests of the plaintiff and the applicants were not common or rival.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Teva filed suit alleging Natco infringed its process patent (IN.190759) by manufacturing and exporting glatiramer acetate under the brand 'Glatimer'. Natco challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing that the alleged infringement related to export outside India, not local sales.
Enercon (India) Ltd. v.Enercon Gmbh
This appeal concerned a joint venture between Enercon (India) Ltd. and Enercon Gmbh, which involved the manufacture and sale of Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs). The dispute centered on whether various agreements, particularly the Intellectual Property License Agreement (IPLA), constituted legally binding contracts despite discrepancies.
Teijin Limited v.Union of India Through The Secretary, Department of Industry, Ministry of Industry and Commerce
Teijin Limited filed a writ petition seeking to quash orders that declared its Patent No. 207883 as ceased due to non-payment of renewal fees (annuities). The Petitioner argued that payments for various annuities, including the 3rd to 9th and 10th year, were made but incorrectly recorded by the Patent Office. The Court found in favor of the Petitioner, directing the restoration of the patent.
National Research Development Corporation v.M/S Industrial Carbon And Ors.
The dispute arose from a license granted by NRDC (a public sector enterprise) to M/S Industrial Carbon for manufacturing SIG contacts. The parties contested an arbitration award dated 28.05.2009 regarding royalty payments and damages. The Delhi High Court partially sustained the award, while setting aside the portion that denied NRDC's claim for royalty during the initial production period, remitting those claims back to the arbitrator.
M.C.Jayasingh v.Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (Midhani)
M.C. Jayasingh filed a suit alleging infringement of his registered Patents and Designs concerning 'Custom Mega Prosthesis' (CMP), specialized medical implants used in limb salvage surgery. The plaintiff claimed unique features, such as pivotal hinge mechanisms and thrust bearing pads, provided superior articulation and durability to the prostheses. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish actual infringement against the defendants, concluding that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove similarity in shape or configuration.
Intex Technologies (India) Limited v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)
Intex Technologies (Informant) alleged that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Opposite Party), a major SEP holder in mobile communication, was demanding excessive and unfair royalty rates for licensing its patents. The Informant also complained about the use of NDAs and foreign jurisdiction clauses which restricted their ability to seek redressal.
U. Varadaraya Nayak v.S.K. Anand & Ors.
The suit involved U. Varadaraya Nayak, an individual inventor, seeking a permanent injunction against several companies (the Defendants) for infringing his patented invention: a twin blade razor (Patent No. 184118). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were manufacturing and selling razors using his technology despite having previously been approached by him regarding licensing opportunities in 2003. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the balance of convenience favored the Defendants.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Mercury Electronics & Anr.
Ericsson filed an application seeking permission to file affidavits and a claim chart mapping in a sealed envelope, arguing that this was necessary to demonstrate how its patented AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies were infringed by Mercury Electronics and Micromax. The court permitted Ericsson to file the documents while keeping them under safe custody for joint inspection.
M/S. Nico Quality Products v.M/S. N.C. Arya Snuff And Cigar Co.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's applications for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The core issue revolved around an assignment deed transferring trademarks from the respondent firm to the petitioner. However, the court ruled that because this crucial assignment deed was insufficiently stamped under the Indian Stamp Act, it could not be admitted as evidence in the suit. Consequently, the injunctions were vacated, allowing the respondent to continue its operations.
M/S Universal Pharma v.G M Bell Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Universal Pharma against a trial court's interim injunction. The dispute involved allegations of copyright infringement and passing off related to pharmaceutical products. The court found that since the main suit was yet to be decided, scrutinizing evidence at the interim stage would prejudice the trial. Consequently, the High Court vacated the existing injunction, favoring the defendant (Universal Pharma) for now.
M/s Paragon Rubber Industries v.M/s Pragati Rubber Mills
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the territorial jurisdiction for a composite suit filed by Paragon Rubber Industries against Pragati Rubber Mills. The core issue was whether a suit claiming relief under both the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, could be maintainable in the court where the plaintiff resided. While the High Court initially found the composite suit not maintainable, it allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the amendment liberty.
M/s.La Renon Health Care Pvt. v.Union of India
M/s. La Renon Health Care Pvt. challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) dismissal of its application to revoke Indian Patent No. 224100, which covered compositions for augmenting kidney function. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the IPAB order and direct the Controller General of Patents to cancel the patent granted to Kibow Biotech Inc. The Madras High Court examined the matter under supervisory jurisdiction, focusing on procedural fairness rather than substituting its own technical findings.
Micromax Informatics Limited v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)
Micromax Informatics Limited filed a complaint alleging that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson was abusing its dominant position by demanding unfair, discriminatory, and exorbitant royalty rates for essential GSM patents. The Commission examined the allegations regarding excessive pricing based on the sale price of the product rather than the value of the technology.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Maj. (Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr.
The suit involved Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. seeking permanent injunction against Maj. (Retd) Sukesh Behl and others for infringing its DVD Disc Patents, specifically Patent No. 218255. The Defendants filed a counter claim seeking revocation of the patent on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to disclose details of corresponding foreign applications as mandated by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970.
R.M. Dhariwal (Huf) v.Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-III
The appellant challenged an order confirming a demand for Rs.64,17,003/- based on providing scientific/technical consultancy services related to the use of the 'Manikchand' brand and its formulae. The appellant argued that the transfer of intellectual property rights (trade name and formulae) was covered under service tax from September 2004, making the demand for the prior period unsustainable.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.V.C. Bhutada
The suit was filed by Bristol Myers Squibb Company against V.C. Bhutada and others, seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of Indian Patent No. 203937 covering the API DASATINIB (marketed as SPRYCEL). The current application sought to return the plaint for presentation in a different court based on territorial jurisdiction.
Dr.Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had cancelled his patents against him. The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the IPAB possessed the jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, to examine the validity of a resolution used to authorize actions.
Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd
Tega Industries Ltd filed a suit for perpetual injunction alleging that Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd was infringing its patented improved screen panel and fixing arrangement. The court, finding the patent valid and subsisting, granted an interim order restraining the respondent from further infringement.
Union Of India v.Dr Ravindranath Pradhan
The Union of India appealed a single judge's order holding that the period of the petitioner's patent should be reckoned from 23.02.2001, not the original filing date of 19.06.1992. The dispute centered on whether procedural delays led to abandonment and how the commencement date should be determined under the Patents Act, 1970.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & 3
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & others alleging patent infringement. The court framed multiple issues, including those related to the validity (novelty, inventive step) and infringement of the suit patents. Both parties agreed to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence.
Dgt Holding B.V. v.Ravi Scientific Industries
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring Dgt Holding B.V., finding no grounds to vacate the order restraining Ravi Scientific Industries from selling deceptively similar chess clocks. The court clarified that even if a design is registered under the Designs Act, a plaintiff can still pursue remedies for passing off and copyright infringement against competitors who are misusing their goodwill and trade dress. This ruling reinforces the availability of common law protections alongside statutory IP rights.
Reliability Engineering Industries v.Aesseal India Private Limited
The appeal arose from interlocutory applications filed regarding the alleged theft and misuse of proprietary rights, technical know-how, and confidential information related to mechanical seals. The plaintiffs sought various injunctions against defendants who were allegedly using their designs and trade secrets.
Shogun Organics Ltd. v.Union Of India
Shogun Organics Ltd. challenged the authority's power to grant registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, for manufacturing insecticides (D-trans allethrin and Transfluthrin) using a patented process held by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that CIBRC should not allow 'me too' registrations without consent from the patent holder. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the authority is not obligated to consider patent rights when granting registration under Section 9(3) or 9(4).
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran v.Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA)
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran filed appeals against APEDA for not providing satisfactory information regarding the file pertaining to the Geographical Indication (GI) registration of Basmati rice, including global protection efforts. The Commission ultimately ruled that APEDA had no disclosure obligation because the requested information involved commercially sensitive and subjudice matters.
F Hoffman La Rochee Ltd & Anr v.Cipla Ltd.
This appeal involved disputes between Roche and Cipla regarding Patent No. 196774, which covered a cancer treatment drug ('Polymer A'). While Cipla had raised counterclaims seeking revocation based on non-disclosure (Section 8), the Division Bench addressed whether to stay the IPAB proceedings pending the outcome of cross-appeals in the High Court.
Jagdale Industries Limited v.Halewood Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Jagdale Industries Limited appealed an order dismissing its application for leave to sue Halewood Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding alleged infringement of Patent No. 247946, which covers a fruit juice based electrolyte energy drink. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence or causal link showing that a part of the cause of action arose within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
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.