Short Summary
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212815 titled “N-substituted 2-cyanopyrrolidines” under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous after noting that the patent term had already expired and the petitioner had previously requested withdrawal.
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 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Novartis AG is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Geetanjali Salon Private LimitedvsMs. Amita Dubey & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Geetanjali Salon Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's trademarks 'GEETANJALI' and 'GEETANJALI STUDIO'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants were also restrained from passing off their services as those of the plaintiff.
P V Anand KishorevsM/S Bhatt Electronics (P) Ltd.
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged an order that held M/S Bhatt Electronics liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000 in damages for infringing registered designs and trademarks related to emergency lights. The original suit was filed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Designs Act. While the appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of manufacturing or sales linking them to the infringement, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding. The court concluded that since there was no denial by the defendant regarding the sale of the product, the liability for damages could be inferred from the facts and circumstances.
Equitas Small Finance Bank Limitedvs3Sk Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner invoked Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, to seek the revocation of Indian Patent 307627. The court granted exemption and issued notice to all respondents, directing them to file their replies within specified timelines.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty LimitedvsMadhuri Singh
The Bombay High Court addressed an application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the 'Jawed Habib' trademark and associated copyright in hair salon services. The court denied the plaintiff's request for immediate relief, primarily because the defendant asserted that she had ceased using the marks as of September 17, 2022, and there was no prima facie evidence to the contrary. Crucially, the court allowed the defendant to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, effectively directing the dispute towards arbitration.
M/s.Jaya Balaji TexvsSenniappan Kuppusamy; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitions sought the removal of specific registered trademarks (No. 1607835 and No. 1464323) from the Register of Trademarks in Class 25. However, both parties reached an amicable resolution regarding the disputes, leading the petitioner to withdraw the cases before the court.
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.