India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 90 of 95 · 2,847 total
Speaking Roses International Inc. v.Controller-General Of Patents And Anr.
The Petitioners applied for a patent for a method of providing an image on organic products (flowers). The Controller-General rejected the application, citing Section 3(j) exclusion and lack of inventive step. The Bombay High Court overturned this rejection, finding that the mechanical process was outside the scope of biological exclusions and demonstrated sufficient novelty compared to prior art.
Aia Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v.Bharat Dand And Ors.
Aia Engineering Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that the defendants illegally accessed and used its proprietary trade secrets related to high chromium grinding media and Duocast rollers, technologies initially acquired from Magotteaux S.A. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the alleged infringement. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no statutory protection for the plaintiff and concluding that at the interlocutory stage, there was insufficient evidence to prove the defendants obtained the trade secrets through the named individuals.
Bilcare Limited v.M/s.Associated Capsules Private Limited
Bilcare Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s.Associated Capsules Private Limited for infringing its registered patent (No. 197823) related to 'metallized' film used in pharmaceutical packaging. The court examined the validity and infringement claims, ultimately finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Bilcare Limited v.M/S.The Supreme Industries Limited
The suit was filed by Bilcare Limited seeking a permanent injunction against M/S. The Supreme Industries Limited for infringing registered patent number 197823, which covered 'metallized' film used in pharmaceutical packaging. The court examined the technical evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement.
Kerala Ayurveda Limited v.State Of Kerala
The petitioner sought permission from various state departments, including the Department of Customs/Central Excise, to incorporate a name change in its L2 license. The Commissioner of Excise and the Government rejected these applications, citing violation of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The High Court ruled that since the Registrar of Companies had already approved the name change, the subsequent rejection by the Excise authorities was unwarranted.
Sundar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Sundar Dietetics Pvt. Ltd., and Sundar Diabetics Dezire v.Adyar Ananda Bhavan And Muthulakshmi ...
The plaintiff, operating under various names, sought an ad-interim injunction against the respondent for infringing two registered patents: one covering a process for making low glycemic sweets with fructose (No. 193899) and another covering the resulting product (No. 200285). The defendant challenged the validity of these patents, claiming fraud by the plaintiff. However, the court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and granted the interim injunction.
Commissioner Of Central Excise v.H.K. Rolling Mills Engg. P. Ltd.
The Revenue appealed against a decision regarding whether H.K. Rolling Mills Engg. P. Ltd. was liable to pay Service Tax on license fees collected for using Thermex Cooling System technology. The Tribunal found that since the respondents were providing technical expertise, assistance, and supervision related to the patented technology, they were rendering engineering services under the Finance Act, 1994.
Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Central Excise
The appellant, IFFCO, challenged the demand for service tax on payments made to HALDOR TOPSOE of Denmark. The dispute centered on whether the payment was for taxable consulting engineer services or merely for the licensing of 'know-how' and technical information. The Tribunal held that since the agreement was composite, the consideration must be bifurcated, with only the portion related to technical assistance being subject to service tax.
Aia Engineering Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Anr.
Aia Engineering Ltd. challenged Patent No. 197257, arguing that substantive changes were made to its claims through amendments disguised as clerical errors. The initial review application was rejected by the Assistant Controller citing procedural flaws and lack of locus standi. However, the High Court intervened, finding fatal errors in the dismissal order due to violation of natural justice principles. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal
This case involved a composite suit filed by The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. against Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal, alleging infringement of trademarks, designs, and copyrights related to ceiling fans sold in the Middle East. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that since the infringing goods were manufactured and exported outside India, the Delhi High Court lacked competence for trademark and design claims. The court ultimately held that while it had jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim, it did not possess the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit concerning trademarks, designs, or passing off.
Jcb India Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Service Tax
Jcb India Ltd. appealed an order from the Commissioner of Service Tax demanding significant amounts of service tax and penalties, arguing that the transaction was a transfer of technical know-how, not a rendering of services. The Tribunal examined the agreement which granted a license under patents and know-how for manufacturing licensed products.
Novartis Ag. v.Cipla Ltd.
Cipla Ltd. opposed Novartis AG's patent application for a new crystal form of imatinib mesylate. The IPAB found that the subject matter was merely a new form of a known substance without significant enhancement in efficacy, thus failing Section 3(d). Furthermore, the court disqualified the application due to improper claiming of Swiss priority.
Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v.Mr. G. Choudhary And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Samsung Electronics against its distributors regarding the sale of 'grey market' ink cartridges/toners. Although the goods were genuine, they were imported outside India and did not conform to Indian market standards, leading to concerns about unauthorized distribution. The court recognized the risk of irreparable loss and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect, seize, and audit the inventory at the defendants' premises to prevent evidence destruction.
Dhanpat Seth And Ors. v.Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction against the respondent, alleging infringement of Patent No. 195917 for an agricultural hauling device. The court examined the claims and found that the patented device was merely an imitation of the traditional 'Kilta', lacking novelty or inventive step as per Section 2(j) of the Patents Act.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.Mr. Anant Kanoi And Ors.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. sued M/s Techfab India (Defendant No. 1) alleging infringement of their patent for a synthetic rope gabion and sought permanent injunction and damages. The defendants argued that the invention was prior art and should be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v.S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd.
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deductions under Section 80-O. The dispute centered on whether the assessee company, M/s S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd., was the rightful owner of patents and designs used to generate royalty income, or if they belonged solely to its Managing Director, Shri Rakesh Goel. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that the company was the beneficial owner.
American Express Bank Ltd. v.Ms. Priya Puri
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute between American Express Bank Ltd. and its former head of wealth management, Ms. Priya Puri. The plaintiff had sought an injunction restraining the defendant from using or disclosing confidential customer information and trade secrets related to the bank’s Wealth View program after her departure. The court ultimately vacated the interim order, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case. The judgment emphasized that restricting an employee's legal right to change employment based on general confidentiality claims is unduly restrictive.
Saranya Zaveri And Anr. v.Kamadon Academy P. Ltd.
The writ petition challenged the lower court's refusal to accept objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Kamadon Academy P. Ltd., sought a declaration of exclusive ownership over the 'Melchizedek method of meditation technique.' The High Court found that since the company was incorporated and conducted business outside Ernakulam, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Hindustan Lever Limited v.Cavin Kare Limited And Ors.
The petitioner (Hindustan Lever Limited) filed contempt applications alleging that the respondents (Cavin Kare Limited and Ors.) willfully breached an undertaking recorded during a prior compromise regarding Patent No. 169917. The undertaking prohibited the manufacture and marketing of fairness cream using Silicone compound in combination with specific ingredients covered by the patent. After considering conflicting reports, the Court found the breach deliberate and wilful.
Glaxo Smith Kline Plc And Ors. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And ...
Glaxo Smith Kline challenged the rejection of their application for exclusive marketing rights. The core dispute revolved around whether the Controller was legally obligated to consider the examiner's report when making the final decision under Section 24A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision based on the law existing at the time of the initial rejection.
Tractors And Farm Equipment Ltd. v.Green Field Farm Equipments Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed two Original Applications seeking interim injunctions against the respondents. O.A. No. 18 sought to restrain the manufacture and sale of tractors (like Maharaja 3300) that substantially imitated the plaintiff's Hunter Tractor design, while O.A. No. 19 aimed to prevent the exploitation of confidential information and technical data related to the Hunter tractor project. The court found prima facie evidence of copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality in favor of the plaintiff.
Novartis Ag v.Hetero Drugs Limited
Novartis AG applied for a patent on the ß-crystal form of imatinib mesylate. Hetero Drugs Limited opposed the application, arguing that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not meet the enhanced efficacy criteria under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Tribunal agreed with the opposition, finding that the subject matter was a new form of a known substance without significant improvement in efficacy.
Novartis Ag v.Cancer Patients Aid Association.
The opposition was filed against Novartis AG's patent application for a specific crystalline form (ß-crystal) of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not meet the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d), leading to the refusal of the patent application.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Ltd.
Natco Pharma Ltd. opposed the patent application filed by Novartis Ag for a specific crystalline form of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not meet the criteria for enhanced efficacy under Section 3(d). Consequently, the application was refused.
Novartis Ag v.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., on behalf of Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, opposed Novartis AG's patent application for a specific crystalline form (ß-crystal) of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not demonstrate enhanced efficacy as required under Section 3(d), leading to the refusal of the patent.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd.
Cipla Ltd. opposed Novartis Ag's patent application for the ß-crystal form of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was merely a new form of a known substance and did not demonstrate significant enhancement in efficacy as required under Section 3(d). Furthermore, the application was disqualified for wrongly claiming priority.
Microfibres Inc v.Girdhar And Co. And Ors.
Microfibres Inc sued Girdhar And Co. for alleged infringement of its copyrighted artistic works on upholstery fabrics and for passing off. The defendants argued that these features were merely textile designs, not protected artistic works, and thus required registration under the Designs Act.
Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited v.United Phosphorus Limited And Anr.
The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking revocation and interim suspension of Patent No. 185229. The respondent argued that since a related suit was already pending before the District Court, Indore, and a restraint order had been obtained there, conflicting orders could not be passed. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim suspension.
M/s. Dhodha House v.S.K. Maingi
The Supreme Court addressed two appeals concerning intellectual property rights. In one case (Dhodha House), the appeal regarding trademark and copyright infringement was dismissed. In another case (Patel Field Marshal), the court allowed the appeal, ruling on jurisdictional issues related to composite suits involving both trade mark and copyright.
Wockhardt Limited v.Hetero Drugs Limited
Wockhardt Limited, holding a Process Patent and Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) for Nadifloxacin 1% Cream, filed suit against Hetero Drugs Limited and others alleging patent infringement. The lower court had previously vacated an interim injunction granted to Wockhardt. This Division Bench set aside the single judge's order, finding that Wockhardt was entitled to an injunction due to a prima facie case and the risk of irreparable injury.
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.