India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 87 of 95 · 2,847 total
Yahoo! Inc v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Yahoo! Inc challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's refusal to entertain its appeal against the Controller's order rejecting a patent application. The petitioner argued that the rejection under Section 25(1) should be construed as a decision under Section 15, allowing for an appeal. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the IPAB to hear the appeal on merits after giving due opportunity to the opposing party.
Dr. (Miss) Snehlata C. Gupte v.Union Of India
The petitions challenged the dismissal of pre-grant oppositions by the Controller of Patents on the ground that they were time-barred. The court examined whether the mere rejection of an opposition coupled with a statement 'I hereby order to grant patent...' constituted the actual date of patent grant.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v.Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Officer New Delhi
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses complex issues related to transfer pricing, specifically concerning the use of trademarks and licensed information between Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan. The case revolved around whether the expenses incurred by the Indian associate enterprise using the foreign brand's logo for promotion required compensation under tax laws. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine an appropriate arm's length price for these international transactions.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited challenged Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited for allegedly disparaging its fairness cream products through television advertisements. The court examined whether the advertising constituted defamation or disparagement, considering settled legal principles regarding comparative advertising and puffing.
Low Heat Driers Pvt.Ltd v.Biju George
The petitioner, Low Heat Driers Pvt.Ltd, sued Biju George for infringement of its patented device for smoke drying agricultural products (Patent No. 176771). The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction and damages. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove infringement by the defendants.
Asian Electronics Ltd. v.Havells India Limited
Asian Electronics Ltd. filed a suit claiming infringement of its Patent No. 193488, which covers a conversion kit for changing fluorescent lighting units from inductive to electronic operation. Asian alleged that Havells India Limited was manufacturing and selling identical products under the brand Prodigy. The court dismissed the application for temporary injunction due to lack of prima facie merit and failure by the plaintiff to substantiate claims of widespread use.
Servewell Products Pvt Ltd v.Dolphin
Servewell Products Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Dolphin, alleging infringement of its registered copyrights in artistic works and its registered design for serving trays. Initially, the court granted an interim injunction favoring Servewell based on prima facie evidence of copying. However, upon considering Dolphin's counter-arguments regarding the novelty and public disclosure of the design, the court found that Dolphin had a reasonably arguable case to challenge the registration. Consequently, both the injunction related to the artistic works and the design was vacated.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ericsson challenged the decision by the Controller of Patents which declared its patent application 'deemed to have been abandoned' under Section 21(1) after repeated objections. The petitioner argued that it had complied with all requirements and was denied an opportunity of being heard. The Court found that the basic condition for abandonment was non-existent, setting aside the order.
Camino De Vera S/N v.Union Of India Through The Secretary
The petitioner challenged the order by the Patent Office (Respondent No.3) that deemed its patent application abandoned and subsequently rejected a review petition. The petitioner argued that the Controller failed to provide adequate opportunities for being heard, especially when exercising quasi-judicial powers. The Bombay High Court found both orders without jurisdiction.
Rajnikant Devidas Shroff v.Pharma Chem
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants regarding the patent rights related to the manufacturing process of Phosphorous Pentachloride. The court framed several issues, including infringement, entitlement to injunction and damages, and the validity/revocation of Patent No. 172459.
NEW NANDI SEEDS CORPORATION v.CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS & 3
The petitioner challenged the actions of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, alleging that the authority acted without jurisdiction and violated natural justice. Specific grievances included the lack of notice before transferring proceedings (Application No. 1328538) and issuing a Certificate of Registration while an opposition was pending.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Procter And Gamble Home Products Limited
The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Limited, filed a suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against Procter And Gamble Home Products Limited for telecasting television commercials that allegedly disparaged its 'Fairness Cream'. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent's advertisement, which compared its product to others using phrases like 'Does your fairness cream work only on the surface?', amounted to actionable slander of goods. The court ultimately found that while comparison and puffing up are permissible, no actual disparagement or economic loss was established at the interim stage.
Meso Private Limited v.Hasanali Kamruddin
The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and sought revocation of the leave granted under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The defendant argued that his export business in Pune did not warrant litigation in Mumbai. The court held that due to provisions in the Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 62(2)) and Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Section 134), coupled with the fact that leave was granted after hearing the defendant, the Court had jurisdiction.
M/S UCB FARCHIM SA v.M/S Cipla Ltd.
The petitions challenged orders passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting patent applications or related documents. The court examined the statutory scheme of the Patents Act, particularly concerning pre-grant and post-grant opposition procedures introduced by the 2005 Amendment Act.
Glaverbel S.A. v.Dave Rose & Ors.
Glaverbel S.A. filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against Dave Rose & Ors., alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling copper-free mirrors infringing Patent No. 190380. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the innovative process and product, which lacked a copper layer.
Tata Motors Limited v.State Of West Bengal
Tata Motors challenged an order from the State Chief Information Commissioner which mandated the disclosure of commercially confidential information contained in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Government of West Bengal regarding the manufacturing of its Nano car. The High Court, while noting that the initial proceedings were flawed due to the non-valid constitution of the SIC, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the State Information Commission.
Dashmesh Mechanical Works v.Hari Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking declaration and injunction against groundless threats related to Patent No. 213823. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction by filing an application for return of plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Polymers (P) Ltd
Tega Industries Ltd filed a petition against Kaveri Polymers (P) Ltd regarding infringement of its patent, No. 231453. Since the defendant failed to appear despite repeated opportunities, the court confirmed the earlier interim order restraining infringement and granted relief in terms of the plaintiff's prayer.
The v.Milap Chand & Co
The plaintiff, a company manufacturing 'Rubber Track Combine Harvester', filed suit and applications alleging infringement of its copyrights (in drawings/parts) and registered designs by the defendant. The dispute centered on whether the defendant's similar harvester machine violated the plaintiff's IP rights.
Glochem Industries Ltd. v.Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
Glochem Industries Ltd. challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs that dismissed its representation by way of opposition against Cadila Healthcare Ltd.'s patent application for Clopidogrel Besylate. The Petitioners argued that the invention lacked enhancement in therapeutic efficacy, which was a core ground for opposition under the Patents Act. The Bombay High Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the matter to be reconsidered afresh by the Patent Office.
M/S Smc Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. B.R. Hariprasad
The plaintiff, a manufacturer of Hi-tech Pneumatics and Hydraulics Components, sued the defendant (a former Sales Engineer) for specific performance, damages, and injunctions, alleging he breached an Employee Intellectual Property Agreement by disclosing confidential trade secrets to a competitor. The court dismissed the suit, finding that the employment restraint clause was unenforceable under Section 27 of the Contract Act and that the plaintiff failed to prove proper authorization.
Compendiously And Concisely v.For A Permanent Injunction Restraining ...
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and destruction of infringing goods against the defendants for violating their Patent No. 230421 (RTIB) and several associated designs. The dispute centered on whether the defendants' imported stainless steel vacuum bottles were deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' patented product. The court disposed of the applications by granting specific injunctions while dismissing the general injunction pending final disposal of the suit.
Bajaj Auto Ltd v.TVS Motor Company Ltd
This Supreme Court judgment addressed the protracted nature of patent infringement litigation, specifically concerning Bajaj Auto Ltd versus TVS Motor Company Ltd. The court emphasized that matters relating to patents must be decided expeditiously by the Trial Court rather than remaining stuck at the interlocutory stage over temporary injunctions. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with directions mandating the respondent to file a written statement and directing the appointment of a Receiver to monitor sales records until the suit is finally disposed of.
Vittal Mallya Scientific Research Foundation v.Indfrag Limited
The applicants filed three applications seeking supplementary instructions to IIT, Madras, to examine whether the respondent's production process for Double Metal Salt of HCA infringed upon the applicants' patents. The court dismissed these applications, holding that they constituted an abuse of the process and were unnecessary since the trial was yet to commence.
Arun Colour Chem & Ors. v.Mithumal Essance Mart & Anr
The Delhi High Court stayed a complex infringement suit involving trademark and copyright claims related to the 'SUN BRAND' food colour label. The core issue revolved around conflicting registrations, as the Defendant held valid marks that challenged the Plaintiff's claim. Given that both the trademark and copyright validity were subject to ongoing rectification proceedings, the court deemed it prudent to halt the litigation until those foundational issues were resolved.
M/s Lachhman Das Behari Lal v.Ghanshyam Das Jetha Nand & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by the defendants seeking to set aside an ex parte decree passed against them in a suit involving trademark, copyright, and passing off claims. While acknowledging the procedural issues raised by the defendants regarding lack of personal service, the court found that the matter required further evidence to determine if there was sufficient cause for setting aside the decree or condoning the delay. Consequently, the court framed specific issues and directed both parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence.
Agc Flat Glass Europe Sa v.Anand Mahajan And Ors.
The plaintiff, claiming global leadership in glass technologies, filed an application seeking to amend Claim 1 of Indian Patent No. 190380 concerning copper-free mirrors (MNGE). The defendants objected, arguing the amendment added new matter and was an attempt to evade patent revocation. The court allowed the amendment, finding it merely clarificatory.
Strix Limited v.Maharaja Appliances Limited
Strix Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against Maharaja Appliances Limited for allegedly infringing Strix’s patented invention related to 'Liquid Heating Vessels'. The patent covers a thermally sensitive overheat control used in kettles. The court found that the Defendant was infringing the validly granted patent and granted the interim injunction.
Chemtura Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Chemtura Corporation filed an application seeking to continue an ad-interim ex parte injunction restraining defendants from infringing its patent on a side bearing pad assembly. The court examined the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, ultimately finding that the balance favored the defendants.
Bayer Corporation v.Union of India
Bayer Corporation, holding a patent for the drug Sorafenib tosylate, challenged the licensing process of its competitor, Cipla, arguing that Cipla's application for 'Soranib' constituted an infringement. Bayer contended that granting the license would violate Section 48 of the Patents Act and contravene the definition of a 'spurious drug' under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, holding that unpatented drugs cannot be deemed 'spurious drugs,' thereby upholding the procedural integrity of the licensing process.
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.