Base Se v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

IPDPTA/3/2023 (OA/7/2019/Pt/Kol)

The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting parts of the 'Pesticidal Mixture' patent application. The appellant argued that the rejection violated natural justice and misinterpreted Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a partial grant is untenable as it undermines the principle of unity of invention.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Calcutta High Court
Case Number
IPDPTA/3/2023 (OA/7/2019/Pt/Kol)
Judge(s)
Ravi Krishan Kapur

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Calcutta High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Base Se vs Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 381/2022

Baxalta IncorporatedvsThe Controller Of Patents

Baxalta Incorporated appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents which refused their application for "FACTOR VIII POLYMER CONJUGATES" due to lack of novelty and inventive steps in product claims. The appellant sought leave to submit an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to method claims. The High Court allowed this submission, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

patentCONT.CAS(C) 414/2023

M/S Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.vsM/S Vrindavan Foods And Anr

M/S Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. filed a contempt petition against M/S Vrindavan Foods And Anr alleging violation of a prior court order dated March 6, 2023. The original order had restrained the respondents from operating under the 'SHREE RATHNAM' brand or utilizing the petitioner's trade secrets and confidential data. After hearing the arguments, the Delhi High Court disposed of the contempt petition, accepting the defense that the respondents had complied with the judgment in letter, spirit, and intent.

patentCS(COMM) No.90/2017

Eih Ltd.vsSahana Realty Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed challenges to the court's territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement dispute brought by EIH Ltd. against Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of 'THREE SIXTY WEST' and 'OBEROI' infringed their established luxury brand rights. The court ultimately dismissed the applications challenging its jurisdiction, affirming that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to consumer confusion and business activities in the region.

patentCS(COMM) 620/2024

Is Eg Halal India Private LimitedvsStandard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Is Eg Halal India Private Limited against Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. The court granted the plaintiff an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, recognizing the importance of their 'IS EG Halal' mark in the market. Furthermore, it appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing packaging materials and inspect relevant books of accounts, ensuring immediate protection for the trademark holder.

patentCS(COMM) 655/2023

Kubota CorporationvsGodabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited

Kubota Corporation filed a suit for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court against Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited. The dispute centers on Kubota's 'HARVES KING' combined harvester, which the Plaintiff claims is infringed by the Defendants' product, 'Ruilong Plus ++'.

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