India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 86 of 95 · 2,847 total
Ten Xc Wireless Inc v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen)
Ten Xc Wireless Inc filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against various defendants, alleging infringement of its registered patent (IN 240893) related to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' used in Bi-Sector Array Antennas. The core dispute revolves around the use of asymmetric beam patterns in wireless communication systems. Although the plaintiffs sought interim injunctions, the court deferred a decision on costs because the defendants had raised credible challenges regarding the patent's validity, which must be examined during the trial.
Glaverbel S.A. v.Dave Rose & Ors.
This case involves Glaverbel S.A., which filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Mirox New Generation Ecological Mirrors' (MNGE mirrors). The plaintiff sought permission to introduce an amended version of Patent No. 190380, which had been allowed in a previous related suit. However, the court ruled against this request, emphasizing that while the amendment might be clarificatory, it cannot be relied upon in the current litigation unless formally recorded and notified by the Patent Office, as the pleadings in the present case relate only to the unamended patent.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Union Of India And Ors
This petition challenged the Patent Office's refusal to accept Form 18, a request for examination under the Patents Act, citing that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The core dispute revolved around an apparent conflict between Rule 24B of the Patents Rules and the guidelines set forth by WIPO/PCT regarding the commencement date for calculating the 48-month period. Given the ambiguity and potential impact on other applicants, the High Court found it expedient to remand the matter back to the Controller General of Patents for a reasoned consideration.
M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited
TVS Motor Company Limited filed applications seeking permission to reserve its right to lead evidence concerning the invalidity of Bajaj Auto Limited's Patent No.195904, which was central to a suit challenging infringement by the product TVS Flame. The court found that due to the interconnected nature of the facts and issues in both suits, a joint trial was necessary.
Respondents/Plaintiffs v.Applicant/Defendant
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No.196774 related to the cancer drug EROLTINIB HYDROCHLORIDE (TARCEVA). The defendant subsequently filed an application to revoke the leave granted by the court, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that since the defendant approached the IPA Board in Chennai with a revocation petition, a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Polydrug Laboratroies P.Ltd v.Controller Of Patents & Ors.
Polydrug Laboratroies P. Ltd appealed against a judgment where its evidence was not taken on record. The appellant argued that the Controller had the power to extend time for filing evidence under Rule 138 of the Patent Rules, 2003. The Supreme Court agreed with this view and set aside the impugned judgment.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its application seeking specific information from the Controller of Patents. The court admitted the petition after hearing counsel for both parties, noting that no interim order was sought at that stage.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs which allowed the patentee to submit a reply statement after missing the statutory deadline. The petitioner argued this contravened the Patents Rules, 2003. The Court admitted the petition and stayed further proceedings pending its final hearing.
Sergi Transformers Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited v.CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited
The applicant challenged the District Judge's order which prevented them from filing a counterclaim seeking revocation of a patent. The dispute involved an infringement suit filed by respondents against the applicant. The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, holding that the trial judge erred in interpreting Section 104 of the Patents Act.
Dr. B. Sahu v.State Of U.P. & Ors.
The petitioner, an Executive Director, challenged a complaint case alleging that selected candidates had stolen secret formulas and information from the respondent company. The petitioner argued that any violation of contracts or IP rights was a civil matter, not criminal. The court agreed, holding that allegations of secrecy theft are subject to civil suit.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.Mr Anant Kanoi-Partner & 5
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunction and account of profits against the defendants under the Patents Act, 1970, alleging patent infringement. The court noted that twenty-three issues had been framed and agreed to allow parties to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence to expedite the final disposal of the suit.
Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Bhupinder Jain
The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent alleging infringement of registered trademarks ("Pari") and copyright. The lower court rejected the plaint on the ground that the courts in Amritsar lacked territorial jurisdiction. The High Court set aside this order, holding that under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the courts where the plaintiff carries on business have jurisdiction.
Electronic Machine Tools Limited v.Power Engineers
Electronic Machine Tools Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its registered patents (Nos. 188585 and 190675). The trial court rejected the plaint, finding no cause of action against the first respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaint did disclose a triable issue.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Union Of India
Nippon Steel Corporation challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to allow an amendment to its patent application's priority date. The Petitioner, which holds world-class technology in medium-high grade steel, had missed the deadline for filing a Request for Examination (RFE) due to a docketing error at its attorney's office. The Petitioner subsequently sought to amend the priority date to extend the RFE window. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that once an application is deemed withdrawn under Section 11-B(4), the Controller cannot entertain any amendment, regardless of the reason for missing the deadline.
Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. v.Asian Sky Shop & Anr
Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. filed two suits against Asian Sky Shop & Anr alleging infringement of copyright and passing off related to their health equipment, 'AB KING PRO'. The plaintiffs claimed the product's engineering drawings were original artistic works protected by copyright, while the defendants argued that the design was merely ornamental and covered under the Designs Act, 2000. However, due to the plaintiffs failing to appear despite applications for counsel discharge, the court dismissed both suits in default.
Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. v.Tvc Sky Shop
Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. filed two suits alleging infringement of copyright and passing off against TVC Sky Shop and Asian Sky Shop. The plaintiffs claimed their health equipment design, 'AB KING PRO,' was protected by both a US patent/design registration and Indian copyright law. However, the court noted significant disputes regarding whether the functional drawings qualified as aesthetic copyrighted works or merely ornamental designs under the Designs Act. Ultimately, due to the plaintiffs' failure to appear despite applications for counsel discharge, the suits were dismissed in default.
Nokia Corporation v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Corporation challenged the Deputy Controller's order which rejected its National Phase Application because it was filed after the stipulated 31-month deadline. The petitioner argued that Rule 138 allowed for a one-month extension and condonation of delay. The High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the application should be decided on merit under Rules 137 & 138.
Penn Racquet Sports v.Mayor International Ltd
This case involves an execution petition filed by Penn Racquet Sports (the Decree Holder) seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against Mayor International Ltd (the Judgment Debtor). The dispute originated from two Trademark License Agreements (TLAs) granting the use of the 'Penn' trademark. Although the judgment debtor raised objections regarding alleged breaches by the decree holder, the Delhi High Court dismissed these objections. Consequently, the court held that the foreign award was enforceable under Chapter I Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Mysore v.M/S Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court addressed disputes arising from the dissolution and subsequent winding up of M/S Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works. The core issue revolved around how the value of goodwill, trade marks, copyright, and technical know-how acquired during the sale should be treated for tax purposes. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had previously directed that these intangible assets be capitalized and depreciated as plant and machinery. However, the High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside this direction.
Spr Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd v.John Distilliries Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Spr Group Holdings against an interim order that restrained its use of a specific label, cap, and bottle design. The court held that the initial approval granted by the Excise Commissioner was based on his discretionary power under excise rules, not necessarily confirming infringement or passing off. Since the matter primarily involved the scope of administrative discretion versus civil rights, the High Court found no error in the Trial Court's decision to grant temporary injunction against the plaintiff.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Shri Yogesh Mehra & Ors.
The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from filing applications for the revocation or cancellation of the plaintiff's patents. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was barred by the doctrine of election since they had already pursued their statutory rights elsewhere. The court held that the defendant is entitled to pursue independent statutory remedies, even if overlapping with defenses in a suit.
Tenxc Wireless Inc. v.Andrewcomm. Scope Inc.
The suit was filed by Tenxc Wireless Inc. against Andrewcomm. Scope Inc. for patent infringement concerning 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The defendant challenged an interim stay order, arguing that the plaintiff had made false and misleading statements in the plaint. The court found merit in the defense's arguments regarding the misstatements and vacated the interim injunction.
Neon Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. v.Troikaa Pharma Limited
Neon Laboratories challenged the grant of Patent No.231479 held by Troikaa Pharma Limited, arguing that the company was prejudiced because it was not afforded an opportunity to oppose additional claims made during the examination process. The High Court set aside the patent grant and directed the Controller to conduct a fresh hearing on the original and amended claims.
Besco Limited (Foundry & Rubber Division) v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Government of India
Besco Limited filed a petition alleging that its application under Section 11B of the Patents Act, 1970 had not been processed by the Controller General of Patents as required by Rule 24B. The petitioner argued that the statutory duty was neglected. The Court admitted the petition but clarified that pendency would not prevent the respondents from taking necessary steps.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v.TVS Motor Company Ltd.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. appealed against an order directing them (the defendant in the original suit) to start leading evidence, while Bajaj Auto was the appellant. The original suit filed by TVS Motor Company Ltd. claimed that its product, TVS Flame, did not infringe Patent No. 195904 held by Bajaj Auto. The court ruled that since the plaintiff's suit was for declaration of non-infringement and damages, they should have been directed to lead evidence first.
K.P.Vijayakumaran @ Kalmandalam v.State Of Kerala
The petitioner, Director of 'Kerala Kathakali Centre', challenged a notice prohibiting the use of his organization's name for trade purposes under Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the name suggested patronage of the State Government. The subsequent Writ Appeal was also dismissed.
Aloys Wobben v.Enercon (India) Limited
Aloys Wobben challenged an order passed by the IPAB, seeking quashing of orders and dismissal of Original Revocation Applications. The dispute centered on whether the Managing Director of Enercon (India) Limited had the requisite locus standi to file the revocation petition against Aloys Wobben's patents. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision that all issues must be considered during the hearing of the original application.
M/S Escorts Construction v.M/S Gautam Engineeringequipment Ltd
The appellant (Escorts Construction), owner of copyrights and patents/designs for industrial drawings of cranes Hydra-12 and Hydra-14, filed a suit alleging infringement by the respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. This appeal challenged that decision.
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co.Ltd. v.Mehar Karan Singh
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co.Ltd filed suit against its former Director, Mehar Karan Singh, alleging that he divulged confidential company information, specifically a customized software manual for real estate, to a competing entity. The core dispute centered on whether the disclosed material qualified as protected trade secrets under their employment contract and Code of Ethics. While the court found grounds for injunctive relief regarding specific documents like the Goa property MOU, it cautioned against broad injunctions concerning general business plans.
Rajnikant Devidas Shroff (Chairman Managing Director of United Phosphorous Limited & Anr.) v.Lucky Chemical Industry & Ors.
The applicants (Rajnikant) sought directions to appoint a Court Commissioner to inspect the premises of the respondents (Lucky Chemical Industry) to determine if they were producing Phosphorous Pentachloride using the patented method covered by Patent No. 172459, despite an existing injunction.
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.