India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 95 of 95 · 2,847 total
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v.Vendra Venkanna, Proprietor Of Jai Bharathi Cement Works
The appellant, Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd., filed suits alleging that defendants were infringing its trade marks ('Hume Pipes') and patent (No. 20709) related to cement concrete pipes. The court affirmed the injunction against trademark infringement but remanded the matter for a Commissioner to assess damages due to disputes over injury quantification.
Upendra Nath Dass And Sons v.T.C. Martin
The plaintiff (Upendra Nath Dass And Sons) filed a suit seeking an interim injunction against the defendant (T.C. Martin) for groundless threats related to Patent No. 63186, which covers crushing machines used in tea manufacturing. The plaintiffs argued that the patent was invalid and they were not infringing it. However, the court held that merely claiming the patent is invalid is insufficient; the plaintiff must unequivocally state that there has been no infringement of the patent.
Mohd. Abdul Kereem v.M. Agaiah
The dispute originated from a trade mark infringement suit where the plaintiff's case was dismissed for default. The plaintiff sought review, which the trial judge allowed. The defendant appealed this decision to the High Court. The court ultimately held that an appeal against a review order granted on grounds outside the scope of Order 47 is incompetent.
V.B. Mohammed Ibrahim v.Alfred Schafraneck And Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages and injunction against defendants for manufacturing flower design chair seats, claiming patent rights. The court held that since the plaintiff was not registered as a patentee and had not followed the statutory procedure to register his title, he lacked the legal standing to file an infringement suit under Section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act. Furthermore, the court found that the actual invention was attributable only to defendants 1 and 2.
K.L. Chaturvedi v.State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Drugs Act, 1940, arguing that the amendment requiring mandatory disclosure of the true formula or list of ingredients for his proprietary medicine 'Germs Killer' infringed upon his right to protect his trade secret. The court upheld the amended provision, stating that the requirement was reasonable and aimed at preserving public health and safety.
K.L. Chaturvedi v.State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Drugs Act, 1940, arguing that the amendment requiring mandatory disclosure of the true formula or ingredient list for his proprietary medicine 'Germs Killer' would expose his trade secret. The court upheld the amended provisions, finding them reasonable and necessary for public health and safety.
Hiralal Banjara And Anr. v.Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the term of their patent or grant a new one, arguing that successive applications for extension were permissible. The court held that based on the scheme of the Act, only one application for extension is contemplated, and once an extension is granted, the power for granting further extensions is exhausted.
J. Nageswara Rao v.The State Of Madras
The petitioner challenged the classification of his patented medicine, 'Vitogen', as 'medicated wine' and the associated duties levied under the Madras Prohibition Act. The court examined the scope of the Act and various notifications regarding medicinal preparations. While upholding the liability of 'Vitogen' to pay a specific duty (Rs. 35 per proof gallon) under Notification No. 473, the court declared certain provisions of the Act, including Section 23(2) and Notification No. 941, as ultra vires and unenforceable.
Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. v.Rohtas Industries Ltd.
The suit was filed seeking a perpetual injunction against Rohtas Industries Ltd. and others for allegedly infringing two patents held by Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. The core issue before the court was whether the defendants' manufacturing and sales activities amounted to patent infringement.
Hiralal Banjara v.Bashiram Sharma And Ors.
Hiralal Banjara sought rectification of a patent register entry after the execution sale of his rights was set aside by the High Court. The case involved complex issues regarding the scope of the Controller's power and whether Hiralal Banjara qualified as an aggrieved person.
Gillette Industries Limited v.Yeshwant Brothers
Gillette Industries Limited sued Yeshwant Brothers for infringing a patent related to safety razor blades. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were importing and selling razor blades bearing names like 'Navy Blade' which infringed their patented design. The court found the patent valid, established infringement, and granted an injunction along with nominal damages.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala v.Chimanlal Chunilal And Co.
The plaintiff, holding a patent for an improved process of treating dried fruits, sued the defendants alleging infringement. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendants' process substantially matched the patented combination, particularly concerning the use of pressure.
Dorman Long And Co. Ltd. v.Jagadish Chandra Mahindra And Anr.
The appeal challenged an order by the Controller of Patents refusing subpoenas for expert witnesses. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari or mandatory injunction, arguing they still had the right to present evidence. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Controller's decision was within his discretion and that the petitioners lacked adequate legal remedies.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah
The appeal concerned a patent action regarding a novel chemical process for whitening almonds. The High Court examined whether the process constituted an invention, if the plaintiff was the original inventor, and addressed prior use defenses raised by the defendant's associates. The court ultimately allowed the appeal in favor of the plaintiff.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah
The case involved an appeal regarding a patent application for a process to whiten almond shells. The court examined whether the combination of bleaching powder and sulphur dioxide under pressure constituted an invention, and if the plaintiff was the true inventor. The court ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff.
National Carbon Co., Incorporated v.Bright Star Battery Company
The National Carbon Company held Patent No. 17148 of 1930 for dry cell batteries. After initial litigation, they sought to amend their patent specification under Section 17 of the Act. The Bright Star Battery Company opposed this application, arguing that a suit for infringement was pending and an appeal had been lodged against the dismissal of the original suit. The Court ultimately dismissed the amendment application.
Indian Vacuum Brake Co., Ltd. v.E.S. Luard
The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 8018, granted to E.S. Luard, arguing that it lacked novelty and invention, and was anticipated by prior art (Hardy's Patent and existing designs). The court found that the respondent's patent was not an improvement on the petitioner's design and disclosed no invention.
Jwala Prasad v.Raghubir Prasad
The appeal concerned questions arising from a partnership dispute involving patent rights to locks named "Kartoos" and "Impervis." The court addressed the scope of judicial power concerning patent ownership when it arises within a winding-up of a partnership, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Bhathey Sundara Rajan And Ors. v.A.A. Kuppusami Iyer And Anr.
The appeal concerned an infringement suit regarding the 'Amp hill Patent Loom.' The court addressed whether defendants could raise defenses beyond those specified in the Patents Act, particularly concerning lack of subject matter. Ultimately, the appeals failed because the defendants were unable to discharge the burden of proving prior use before the patent application date.
Symed Labs Limited v.Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited
Symed Labs Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited for manufacturing and selling Linezolid, allegedly infringing their patents IN 213062 and IN 213063. However, the plaintiff withdrew the suit, and the court dismissed it as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The case highlights the importance of patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry. The plaintiff's decision to withdraw the suit may indicate a settlement or a strategic decision to focus on other legal battles.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc & Anr v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the defendants to deposit a sum or submit an unconditional bank guarantee as pro-tem security payment in a patent infringement case related to wireless communication technology. The plaintiffs, Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc, claimed that their technological innovations were protected by over 31,500 patents and applications worldwide. The defendants, Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd, were engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling smartphones under various brands.
Deepak Nitrite Limited v.The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs
The Bombay High Court set aside an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing a patent application for a free-flowing food-grade sodium nitrite and its production method. The court held that the impugned order lacked adequate reasoning and analysis of the rival submissions. The patent application is to be decided afresh within 12 weeks. The court emphasized the importance of passing well-reasoned and speaking orders in patent cases.
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Controller of Patents to reject the patent application of Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. The application was rejected on the grounds of lack of novelty and non-patentability. The court held that the applicant failed to establish the novelty of the invention and that the invention did not meet the requirements of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The court also observed that the applicant had not provided sufficient data to support its claims of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
SML Limited v.M/s Happy Agro Chemicals
SML Limited filed a patent infringement suit against M/s Happy Agro Chemicals, alleging that the defendant's product 'SELZIC' infringes their patent rights under Indian Patent No.282092. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their patent rights. However, the court dismissed the application due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the alleged wrong was not committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to grant the interim injunction.
Dr. G. Srinivasan v.M/s. Voltamp Transformers Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for infringing his patent related to Midget Transformers with built-in State node Circuit Breakers. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the infringement and revoked the patent.
M.Manuvel v.Malabar Gold Pvt. Ltd
The Kerala High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by M.Manuvel, which challenged a lower court's order regarding jurisdiction in a trademark and passing off suit. The core issue revolved around the defendant's late application to amend their written statement to raise objections concerning territorial jurisdiction. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held that without demonstrating due diligence before the trial commenced, such an amendment could not be allowed after the proceedings had started.
Prof.D.Aravindakshan v.Union Of India
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Prof. D. Aravindakshan challenging the refusal of the Registrar of Companies to approve the name 'Agastya Bio-Tech Limited'. The court found that despite the petitioner's claims, the attempt to register a company with an identical name while disputes regarding the original entity ('Agastya Bio-pharm India Limited') were pending made the proposed name undesirable. This ruling underscores the strict application of corporate naming rules designed to prevent public confusion and deception.
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.