Short Summary
Aratana Therapeutics appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201747026233), which related to a weight-gaining compound for animals with chronic maladies. The appellant argued that their claims were limited to oral administration methods and did not claim a permanent cure, contrary to the Controller's interpretation under Section 3(i).
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 Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. vs Controller of Patents and Designs is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SOTKON SP SLUvsWESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PVT. LTD.
The case involves the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's patent and copyright rights related to a waste management system. The Defendants are accused of infringing the Plaintiff's patent by submitting a tender for a similar waste management technology.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors.vsGuangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of a Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a reciprocal disclosure model, requiring full access to PLAs for all members of the Confidentiality Club.
Interdigital Vc Holdings IncvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing their patents related to the High Efficiency Video Encoding (HEVC/H.265) standard. The Plaintiffs also seek to add further patents and devices that may infringe during the proceedings.
BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITEDvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No.625/CHE/2011 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application related to a method and kit for detecting Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) using specific nucleotide sequences. Bigtec argued that their claimed sequences demonstrated unexpected effects over prior art, countering objections regarding lack of inventive step and patentability under Section 3(c). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
Havells India LimitedvsVijay
Havells India Limited sued Vijay for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction, restraining Vijay from using the HAVELLS trademark. The court also awarded damages and punitive damages to Havells India Limited. The case highlights the importance of protecting well-known trademarks in India.
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.