India Patent Cases
2,823 decisions indexed
Page 88 of 95 · 2,823 total
Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Lim.
Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Lim., alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Vega Asia' and associated copyrights in packaging designs. The defendant countered by asserting prior use, holding its own registrations (including the mark 'Vegah'), and crucially, arguing that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts regarding pending rectification applications and previous complaints. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application, finding that the plaintiff's conduct disentitled them from relief at this stage.
Atlas Metal Processors Pvt., Ltd. v.H.K.International
Atlas Metal Processors Pvt., Ltd. filed a suit against H.K.International alleging infringement of its patented stainless steel vacuum bottle design and associated registered designs. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, damages, and destruction of infringing goods. After considering the arguments from both sides, the court ultimately decreed the suit concerning the patent and design infringements (Prayers A and B), while dismissing the claims related to passing off, damages, and accounts (Prayers C, D, E, and F).
Garware - Wall Ropes Ltd. v.M/s. A.I. Chopra, Engineers & Contractors
Garware - Wall Ropes Ltd. filed a suit claiming infringement of its patents (GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems) by M/s. A.I. Chopra. The appeal challenged the rejection of the temporary injunction application. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and issued a temporary injunction against the respondent.
Indian Network for People living with HIV/AIDS v.Union of India
The petitioners, representing people living with HIV/AIDS, challenged the grant of Patent No.207232 by F.Hoffmann-La Roche AG for Valganciclovir derivative. They argued that since India adopted a product patent regime in 2005, any product invention disclosed prior to 1995 should be considered public domain and lack novelty. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the patent grant.
Bureau Of Indian Standards v.Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned whether Pepsico's use of specific terms ('PURE', 'PURITY GUARANTEED') and a pictorial device (snow-capped mountain) on its packaged drinking water label, Aquafina, was misleading. The Bureau of Indian Standards argued that these elements suggested the product was mineral water from mountains, which was untrue for standard packaged drinking water. After considering the statutory powers of BIS and consumer protection concerns, the court partially allowed the appeal.
M/S Spinner Marketing v.The Kerala State Electricity Board
The petitioner, holding a patent for tamper-proof meter security seals, challenged the Kerala State Electricity Board's decision to award a supply tender to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent relied on having a design registration and argued that the product was not a new invention. The court ultimately dismissed the petition.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal concerning patentability issues involving crystal modification of an N-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative. The core issue was the absence of a qualified Technical Member in the Intellectual Property Appellant Board (IPAB).
Bell Products Private Limited v.M.K. Gupta, Proprietor (Sri Balaji Industries)
Bell Products Private Limited filed contempt appeals alleging that M.K. Gupta violated an interim injunction related to their 'bell' trademark and copyright. The core legal dispute revolved around whether an appeal was maintainable against the dismissal of a contempt petition. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant had willfully suppressed facts and acted in mala fide conduct, thereby justifying the imposition of costs.
Magma Fincorp Limited v.Babu Murty Filley & Another
Magma Fincorp Limited filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking various reliefs. The court granted an interim order restraining the respondents from dealing with or changing the identity of the specified equipment for three months, while allowing them to use it in their usual course of business.
Glaxo Smith Kline Plc v.Controller Of Patents & Designs
The dispute concerned the application for Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) under the Patents Act. After the relevant chapter was repealed by amendment in 2005, the appellants challenged the High Court's decision which had allowed appeals based on the argument that no further consideration of EMR was possible post-amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that due to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the vested right to challenge earlier orders remained alive.
ADC GmbH v.Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd.
The plaintiffs, including ADC GmbH and Krone Communication Ltd., filed a suit for permanent injunction against Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd. alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling junction box casings identical to those protected by Indian Patent No.164857. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement.
J.Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.Asst. Controller of Patents & Desig. & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed the confusion arising from the postponed commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The dispute involved pending pre-grant opposition appeals filed by Span Diagnostics Limited challenging a rejection order by the Controller of Patents.
The International Association of Lions Clubs v.The Association of Lions India
The International Association of Lions Clubs filed a suit against The Association of Lions India, alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were wrongfully adopting their registered trademarks, specifically 'LION', and engaging in acts of passing off by using similar names. Furthermore, they alleged copyright infringement through the adoption of insignia and substantial copying of the Plaintiffs' Constitution and By-Laws. The suit also included claims regarding defamation due to negative reports published by the defendants.
Mariappan v.A.R.Safiullah
This Madras High Court judgment addressed appeals concerning alleged infringement and passing off related to food-grade laminated paper resembling banana leaves. The plaintiff, Mariappan, claimed exclusive rights under Patent No. 198079 and a registered design. The court sustained the interim injunction favoring Mariappan, recognizing his established goodwill and potential irreparable loss. However, it noted that the concept was prima facie innovative rather than an invention, confirming the earlier order against A.R.Safiullah.
M.G.M. Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Customs
The Tribunal upheld the Customs department's decision that various payments made by the franchisee (M.G.M. Entertainments) to the foreign franchisor were part of the transaction value of the imported goods. These fees, including franchise fee, license fee for technical know-how, and royalty, were deemed necessary conditions for the sale and use of the licensed products.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.Techfab India And 5 Ors.
The petitioner (Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd.), holding a patent for its Synthetic Rope Gabion (SRG Invention), filed a suit alleging infringement by the respondents after they acquired technical know-how from former employees. The appeal challenged an interlocutory order refusing the interim injunction, but the court ultimately dismissed the appeal and confirmed the refusal of the injunction.
Hind Mosaic and Cement Works and Another v.Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation and Another
The court framed issues in a civil suit concerning alleged infringement of Patent No. 203004 held by the plaintiff (Hind Mosaic). The defendant (Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation) contested the patent's validity and scope, leading to an oral order setting the next hearing date.
Span Diagnostic v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And ...
The dispute involved an appeal filed by Span Diagnostic challenging a decision made by the Controller of Patents concerning a patent opposition. The core legal question was whether the appeals were maintainable in the High Court or required transfer to the Appellate Board, given subsequent amendments and notifications.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Limited
This case involves F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. seeking an ad-interim injunction against Cipla Limited for allegedly infringing its patent on the cancer drug Erlotinib (marketed as Tarceva). The court examined the balance between protecting the innovator's intellectual property rights and ensuring public access to a life-saving generic medication. Ultimately, the court dismissed the request for an immediate injunction, prioritizing the public interest in patient access.
Rolic Ag Et Al v.The Controller General Of Patents And ...
The appeal challenged the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent for 'Topologically Structured Polymer Coating.' The appellants argued that the invention was novel and inventive, citing acceptance by the European Patent Office (EPO). The IPAB found that the Controller's refusal order lacked clarity and explicit reasons, leading to the remand of the case.
Michigan State University v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And ...
Michigan State University appealed the decision of the Patent Office to abandon its divisional patent application (No. 1699/DEL/1996). The Patent Office had maintained objections that the claimed expression cassette did not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) and was non-patentable. The IPAB found the abandonment order unsustainable due to a violation of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided.
M/S. Shand Pipe Industries Ltd v.M/S. Hind Mosaic & Cement Works & Ors
The petitioner appealed against an interim relief granted by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench failed to analyze the relevant provisions of the Patents Act, specifically Sec. 13(4) read with Secs. 47 and 48, concerning the effect of a counter claim and patent registration. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Wipro Limited v.Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Limited
Wipro Limited appealed against a single judge's decision to reject suits filed for trademark infringement ("Chandrika") and copyright infringement. The core issue was whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction, as the respondents were located outside its territorial limits. The court held that when challenging jurisdiction via demurrer, the allegations in the plaint must be accepted as true.
Wipro Limited, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial ... v.Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) ...
The plaintiffs (Wipro Limited) filed suits alleging infringement of their registered trade mark 'Chandrika' and associated copyright by the defendants. The lower court rejected these suits on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that no essential part of the cause of action arose within its territory. The High Court appellate bench overturned this decision, holding that when jurisdiction is challenged via demurrer, the allegations in the plaint must be taken as true.
J. Mitra And Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.Kesar Medicaments And Anr.
J. Mitra And Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Kesar Medicaments and others, alleging that their product, SIGNAL HCV, infringed on the plaintiff's Patent No. 194638. The patent covers a 'fourth generation' diagnostic device for detecting Hepatitis C Virus antibodies in human serum. The court examined the technical specifications of both devices, noting similarities in core components and identical sensitivity/specificity reports. Finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, the Delhi High Court granted the temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff's patent rights.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v.Tvs Motor Company Ltd.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. sought an interim injunction against TVS Motor Company Ltd., alleging that its 125-CC 'FLAME' motorcycle infringed upon Bajaj's Patent No. 195904, which covers an improved four-stroke internal combustion engine using twin spark plugs. The court examined the prima facie case, finding that novelty and enablement had been established by the applicant through market presence. Consequently, the interim injunction was granted in favor of Bajaj Auto Ltd., restraining further infringement.
Ravi Kamal Bali v.Kala Tech And Ors.
The Plaintiff sought an injunction against the Defendants for manufacturing and selling tamper-proof locks/seals that allegedly infringed his patents. The court examined the infringement claims, noting the similarity between the parties' products. However, the court ultimately denied the injunction due to the Plaintiff's significant delay in bringing the matter before the court.
Eureka Forbes Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The appeal challenged the Single Judge's decision to allow a suit for patent infringement. The court examined whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, particularly when the suit was filed against another patentee. The High Court held that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and dismissed the appeal.
Hind Mosaic And Cement Works And Anr. v.Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation
The appellants, who held a patent for a PVC pipe joint system, filed a civil suit alleging infringement by the respondents. The appeal challenged the Single Judge's order rejecting an interim injunction. The High Court restored the ad-interim relief, finding that it was a fit case to grant interim relief.
E-Merge Tech Global Services P Ltd. v.Mr. M.R. Vindhyasagar and Datasolve Analytics P ltd.
The plaintiff, a knowledge processing service company, filed a civil suit alleging that the first defendant (a former senior employee) used his knowledge and access to proprietary information after resigning. The plaintiff further alleged that the first defendant incorporated the second defendant company, which operated with an identical business model and targeted the plaintiff's clients.
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.