Emerson Process Mangement Power And Water Solutions Inc v. Controller Of Patents

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 178/2022 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 17/2023

Emerson Process Management filed appeals challenging the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) relating to computer software. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the lack of novelty and inventiveness in associated hardware—no longer aligns with current Patent Office guidelines.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 178/2022 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 17/2023
Judge(s)
C. Hari Shankar

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Emerson Process Mangement Power And Water Solutions Inc vs Controller Of Patents is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 745/2022

Ved Prakash SonivsVidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between Ved Prakash Soni and Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed an exemption application while simultaneously issuing notice to the respondents regarding the main suit. Both parties were directed to exchange necessary documentation, with a timeline set for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the substantive litigation is proceeding.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 686/2022

Burger King Company LlcvsVirendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.

The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong protection afforded to the 'BURGER KING' trademark, declaring it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act. The court relied on Burger King's extensive global presence, long history (since 1954), massive promotional spending, and established secondary meaning in India. This judgment reinforces that globally recognized brands can secure enhanced legal protection against unauthorized use by local operators.

patent(T)CMA(TM)/24/2023

Bharat VastralayavsKarishma Silks & Sarees

The Madras High Court disposed of a Trade Marks Appeal between Bharat Vastralaya and Karishma Silks & Sarees based on a settlement reached between the parties. The consent terms mandate that while the Respondent can continue using 'KARISHMA' for one specific outlet in Bangalore, they must withdraw their existing trademark registration (No. 572267) in Class 24. This resolution provides a clear path forward for both parties to manage their respective rights and prevent further litigation.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 40/2023 & I.A. 22445/2023

Arcturus Therapeutics IncvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Arcturus Therapeutics Inc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent (IN'205) for 'Ionizable Cationic Lipid for RNA Delivery'. The refusal was based on non-submission of required data and pending claims.

patentCS(COMM) 1150/2025 & I.As. 26615-18/2025

Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt LtdvsM/S. Social Kitchen Through Its Proprietor

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Impresario Entertainment, who holds a registered trademark for 'SOCIAL' used across various hospitality services. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, noting the defendant's prior withdrawal of its own application due to concerns over deceptive similarity. This interim order immediately restrains the defendant from using marks similar to 'SOCIAL', including variations like 'SOCIAL KITCHEN'.

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