Short Summary
Duke University appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'LASOFOXIFENE TREATMENT OF ER+ BREAST CANCER' by the Deputy Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and statutory objections (Sec. 2(1)(ja) and Sec. 3(i)), without permitting the appellant to amend its claims as requested.
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 Duke University vs Deputy Controller of Patents & Design is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rajapalayam Industrial And CommercialvsP. Iya Nadar Charitable Trust
The petitioner sought expunction (rectification) of the registered trade marks 'CAMEL' (Nos. 109120 and 439372), arguing that their registration in favour of the respondent charitable trust violated Section 6(2) of the Act, and that the mark had suffered dilution due to widespread use by family members. The respondent defended its right to maintain the mark.
Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa Trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private LimitedvsG.Kannan Trading as D.S.K.Garments
This case involved a suit filed by Mr. Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa (trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store) and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited against G.Kannan (D.S.K.Garments) and Hitlar Fashions. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the 'TECHNO' brand used on garments. Ultimately, a compromise was reached between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd.vsMr.V.M.Joseph and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court disposed of rectification petitions filed by M/S. Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. V.M. Joseph regarding the trademark 'MILKA'. The court relied on a binding Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated 18.02.2016, wherein Mr. Joseph acknowledged that PBPL was the true proprietor of 'MILKA' and agreed to end all disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the disputed registrations.
Nripendra Kashyap Constituted Attorney of Huawei Device Co., Ltd.vsThe Assistant Controller of patents and Designs Patent Office, Intellectual Property Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
The appellant, representing Huawei Device Co., Ltd., filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order granting a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 9270/CHEN/2013. The learned counsel for the appellant subsequently instructed to withdraw the appeal.
Rana SteelsvsRan India Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications filed by Rana Steels concerning the alleged infringement of its registered trademark RANA. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's continued use of similar marks (RANATOR/RAN INDIA) in relation to steel products, despite existing injunction orders. Recognizing the need for factual verification regarding ongoing usage and the disposal of old stock, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and examine account books.
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.