F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

(T)CMA(PT)/103/2023 (OA/14/2018/PT/CHN)

F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a subcutaneous anti-HER2 antibody formulation. The rejection was based on the product lacking inventive step and being known in the market. The court allowed the appeal, noting that the original decision failed to address 11 out of 12 claims independently.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
(T)CMA(PT)/103/2023 (OA/14/2018/PT/CHN)
Judge(s)
N.Seshasayee

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2022

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki KaishavsThe Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed an appeal challenging a decision by the Senior Examiner regarding its trademark application for 'ALPHARD' in Class 12. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the appellant to cure procedural delays and admitting the appeal, set the matter down for further hearing. Toyota argued that as a prior user of the mark since 2008, the examiner erred in declining registration.

patentCS(COMM) 422/2025

Luxottica Group S.P.A.vsAzad Optical Co. India & Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in favor of Luxottica Group S.P.A., which is seeking relief against counterfeiters selling 'RAY-BAN' products. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, while also allowing the filing of additional documents and deficit court fees. Crucially, the court allowed an ad interim injunction, permitting a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendants' premises, including assistance from local police, to curb large-scale trademark infringement.

patentCS(COMM) 467/2024, CAV 259/2024 I.A. 30780/2024 I.A. 30781/2024 I.A. 30782/2024 & I.A. 30783/2024

Nandi Infratech P. Ltd.vsHimanshu Bhandari & Ors.

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. against Himanshu Bhandari & Ors. The court allowed exemptions from pre-institution mediation and filing certain annexures, while also proceeding with the main injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'AMAATRA BANQUETS' against the registered trademark 'AMAATRA'.

patentCS(COMM) 395/2023 & I.A. No. 37843/2024

Allied Blenders And Distillers LimitedvsBoutique Spirit Brands Private Limited

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's mark 'MYRON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established brand 'KYRON,' particularly as both were used for French Brandy. Furthermore, the court cancelled the defendant's registered trademarks ('BSB MYRON') following rectification petitions, effectively protecting the plaintiff's market exclusivity.

patentFAO (COMM) 85/2025, CM APPL. 18350/2025 & CM APPL. 18351/2025

Tarakant SangwanivsApollo Pipes Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the custody of allegedly infringing goods in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant, who was the defendant below, challenged the Commercial Court's order directing that the seized goods be handed over on 'superdari' to the respondent (Apollo Pipes Limited). The court found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the relief granted by the lower court exceeded what the respondent had sought in their application. Consequently, the High Court issued a notice for a show cause hearing and temporarily stayed the transfer of goods, keeping them under the custody of the appellant pending further orders.

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