Annikki Gmbh v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

183687612

Annikki Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process for producing xylitol from lignocellulosic material. The rejection was based on alleged lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(d) due to prior art citations (D1-D5). The High Court found errors in the respondent's reasoning, particularly regarding the non-fermentative nature of the claimed process versus the cited prior art.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
183687612
Judge(s)
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

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 Annikki Gmbh vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent1747781

Vishnudas Trading As VishnudasvsThe Vazir Sultan Tobaccoco. Ltd.

The dispute concerned the validity of Trade Mark registrations held by The Vazir Sultan Tobaccoco. Ltd. for 'Charminar' under Class 34 ('manufactured tobacco'). The appellant, Vishnu Das Trading as Vishnudas, sought registration for similar goods (quiwam and zarda) using the same mark. The Supreme Court upheld the rectification order that limited the respondent's trademark to cigarettes, ruling that specific articles can be registered within a class.

patent120550771

Corning IncorporatedvsThe Controller Of Patents

Corning Incorporated filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking quashing of a previous order and directing the Controller to grant a patent on application number 202117018914. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for further hearing.

patent185987633

Made Easy Education Private LimitedvsTelegram Fz Llc & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing infringement issues concerning educational video content on Telegram. While the defendant, Telegram, has complied with previous takedown orders, the plaintiff continues to face proliferation of infringing links and source code issues. The court allowed the plaintiff time to present technical evidence regarding these persistent infringements, while reserving a discussion on dynamic injunctions for future hearings.

patent90198100

M/s.Star PlasticsvsChandrasekhar

The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Star Plastics' petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register against Chandrasekhar's 'STARPRO' mark. The court found that despite the addition of the suffix 'pro', the similarity between the petitioner's registered word mark 'Star' and the respondent's 'STARPRO' was striking enough to deceive an ordinary consumer. Given both marks were in Class 17, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the infringing registration.

patent167576733

M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd.vsThe State Of West Bengal

Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call