India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 92 of 161 · 4,815 total
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patent Design and Trademarks And Anr
This case involves Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealing against a decision that was previously handled by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited approached the Calcutta High Court regarding a matter transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court noted that no parties appeared on the date and directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both sides prior to the returnable date. This procedural order sets the stage for further hearing in the High Court.
Viacyte Inc. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
This case involves Viacyte Inc. challenging a decision or proceeding before the Controller General of Patents. The matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued directions for the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report, setting the next hearing date.
Pharma Mar S A v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
This opposition matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Indian Institute Of Science (Oa ...) v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for further hearing.
Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
This case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Binyarco Llc v.The Controller Patents And Designs And Ors.
The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Glaxosmithkline Biologicals Sa v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The High Court at Calcutta received the matter (OA/9/2017/PT/KOL) concerning Glaxosmithkline Biologicals Sa vs Controller General of Patents and Designs from the IPAB following the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter for further hearing.
Sasol Technology (Pty.) Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
This judgment records the transfer of a patent appeal matter (OA/8/2018/PT/KOL) from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court, following the implementation of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Impact Selector International Llc v.Controller Of Patents
Impact Selector International Llc appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Field Adjustable Impact JAR' by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that the Patent Office must pass a reasoned or 'speaking' order when rejecting an application based on lack of inventive step. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by another officer.
Nripendra Kashyap (Constituted Attorney of Huawei Device Co. Ltd.) v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Base Sf v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next appearance date.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
This case involves Array Biopharma Inc challenging a patent matter before the Calcutta High Court. The proceedings were transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Chemocentryx, Inc v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This case involves Chemocentryx, Inc challenging proceedings before the Controller General of Patents. The matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court's Commercial Appellate Division following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed that notices be issued to both parties and a report filed prior to the returnable date, setting the next hearing for March 6, 2023.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs and Anr
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
FLOW INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for hearing.
Honeywell International Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, which had declined its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the decline order was non-reasoned and inconsistent with previous judicial decisions. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties to file detailed submissions, brief notes, and relevant documentation before proceeding with the appeal.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings & Ors. v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The petitioner (Bristol Myers Squibb) filed an application seeking correction of clerical and typographical errors in a previous order concerning its US patent infringement suit against Apotex Inc. Separately, the court allowed the respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals) to file its written statement after condoning the delay.
Sabyasachi Couture v.Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited
In a significant resolution for the fashion industry, the Delhi High Court decreed a suit involving Sabyasachi Couture against Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's trademark rights and undertook not to use or deal in garments bearing the 'SABYASACHI' mark or designs without authorization. This judgment provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved through negotiated settlements.
Amrit Corp. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Amrit Corp. Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the composite label mark 'JUST MILK'. The court found that the combination of the arbitrary word 'JUST' with 'MILK' was suggestive and capable of distinguishing goods, overcoming the objection based on lack of distinctiveness. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to proceed with the registration process for 'JUST MILK', while clarifying that this registration would not grant exclusive rights in the generic term 'MILK'.
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the cancellation of a copyright held by M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods for the label 'KARTIER GOLD 24 CARAT SWISS MILK CHOCO'. This action stemmed from an earlier civil suit regarding trademark infringement. The court found that since the respondent had undertaken in a settlement decree to withdraw and cancel the registration, the petition was allowed.
Alfred Von Schukmann v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Alfred Von Schukmann appealed the rejection of his patent application, titled 'Step-Action Indexing Mechanism,' which was denied by the Patent Office on grounds of lacking inventive step. The appellant argued that the Patent Office's order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that a reasoned decision is mandatory when rejecting an application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs Anr.
Natco Pharma challenged the Assistant Controller's order granting a patent to Novartis for pharmaceutical compositions, arguing that the order was passed with procedural irregularities and violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable and quashed the impugned order, remanding the application back to the Controller for fresh consideration based on due process.
Shiv Nadar Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Shiv Nadar Foundation's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its device mark. The court held that because the mark is composite—combining a graphic representation with the institution's name and the word 'SHIKSHA'—it cannot be deemed descriptive in isolation. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement, provided the Appellant agrees not to claim exclusive rights over the common term 'SHIKSHA'.
Organo Gold Holdings, Limited v.Origano Gold Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Organo Gold Holdings against Origano Gold Private Limited. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's rights in the 'ORIGANO GOLD' mark and committed to immediately cease using similar marks or logos. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 agreed to withdraw specific registered trademarks and pending trademark applications.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Hemant Khanna Trading as M/s V2 Fashion Store
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to its registered marks, LEVI'S, including the Two Horse Logo. The court found infringement of the registered trademarks and passing off by the defendants.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Toshiba appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its process patent application (No. 5817/DELNP/2013). The High Court found the original rejection order completely unreasoned and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for a fresh decision.
Wockhardt Limited v.Zymes Bioscience Private Limited & Anr.
Wockhardt Limited filed a suit alleging that Zymes Bioscience Private Limited infringed its Indian Patent No. IN 318858, which covers the formulation of a new generation antibiotic combination (2 grams cefepime and 2 grams tazobactam). The court registered the plaint and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products containing this specific combination.
Siddharth Suri v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Siddharth Suri against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANDAMEN'. The initial refusal was based on similarity to an earlier trade mark under Section 11(1)(b). However, the court found that since 'ANDAMEN' is a name of a sea and does not have a reputation associated with Class-18 goods (leather goods), the absolute ground for refusal under Section 9(1)(a) was not attracted. Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, directing the Trademark Registry to process the registration application.
AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v.VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute regarding the scope of an undertaking provided by defendants concerning the use of the trademark 'TOWER'. The court ruled that the undertaking could not be extended to specific goods (Monosodium Glutamate, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Camphor, Hexamine tablets in Class 1, and green raisins in Class 29) because the plaintiff had explicitly acknowledged the defendants' right to use the mark for those categories in their plaint. Consequently, the court modified the undertaking, limiting its restriction only to other goods.
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.