Short Summary
Almac Discovery Limited filed an appeal challenging the Impugned Order dated July 19, 2017, passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Indian Patent Application No.82/CHENP/2009. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Almac Discovery Limited vs The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
The Calico Printers AssociationvsGosho Kabushiki Kaisha Limited
The Calico Printers Association sued Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Limited for importing and selling goods bearing a registered design that was identical to or imitated their protected design without license. The core legal issue revolved around whether the plaintiffs were bound by the statute (Indian Patents and Designs Act, II of 1911) to elect between specific remedies: account of profits, damages, or a fixed sum of Rs. 1,000.
Immunovative Therapies, LtdvsThe Controller Of Patents
Immunovative Therapies, Ltd filed an appeal against objections raised by The Controller of Patents. The respondent completed submissions on Sections 10(4) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, requesting a hearing regarding objections under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d).
ASR Market Ventures Private LimitedvsFitship Private Limited & Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and connected interlocutory injunction application filed by ASR Market Ventures Private Limited against Fitship Private Limited concerning the trademark 'FITSHIP' (Registration No. 5154387 in Class 30). ASR, engaged in the fitness and lifestyle business, claimed prior adoption and use of the mark 'FITFEAST' since 2017 for nutrition and healthy food services, and sought cancellation of Fitship's registration along with an interim injunction. The Court held that ASR failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off and was not entitled to the interlocutory injunction, dismissing the application.
Bcs S.P.A.vsThe Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bcs S.P.A. appealed the Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for an 'Agricultural Driving Mechanism and Related Tool'. The appellant argued that the rejection order was unreasoned, merely reproducing extracts from prior art without proper analysis. The High Court agreed, finding the order bereft of reasoning, and set it aside.
Enercon India Ltd.vsM/S. Wobben Properties GmbH
Enercon India Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220033 granted by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. Both parties submitted that the term of the said patent had expired on November 7, 2023.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.