Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd v. The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs

73773292

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller's decision refusing its divisional patent application for 'PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF PEMETREXED'. The refusal was based on the prior refusal of the mother application. However, since the mother application was subsequently granted, the High Court found the reason for refusal no longer tenable.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
73773292
Judge(s)
Jyoti Singh

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 Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd vs The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent159131803

ITC LimitedvsFortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited & Anr.

ITC Limited filed a suit against Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited and others, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the use of the 'FORTUNE' brand in the hospitality sector. The court acknowledged ITC's extensive rights over the 'FORTUNE' trademarks and noted the potential for consumer confusion caused by the Defendants' unauthorized use. While reserving a full hearing on the merits, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, immediately stopping the Defendants from making new bookings under the disputed mark.

patent193668708

K.P.D.RajendranvsMr.G.Sundarapandian

The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by K.P.D.Rajendran seeking the removal of trademarks 'SOLO' and 'BOVONTO.' The court noted that the impugned trademark registrations (Nos. 929435, 929437, and 929438) had not been renewed by the mark owner. Consequently, the petitions were deemed infructuous.

patent109448838

Monsanto Technology, LLCvsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

Monsanto Technology appealed the order of the Assistant Controller which refused to patent two independent claims related to transgenic soybean plants. The appellant argued that if objections were raised, at least the remaining eleven claims should have been patented. The High Court found the respondent had not applied its mind wholly to all claims.

patent8419607

T-Mobile Usa IncvsController Of Patents

T-Mobile USA Inc appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for 'Preferred Contact Group Centric Interface'. The Controller refused the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art and arguing that the invention was essentially a computer program per se, lacking technical effect beyond normal hardware interaction.

patent177697163

Mr.A.SalaudeenvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

Mr. A. Salaudeen approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged delay by the Registrar of Trade Marks in processing his post-registration changes for three trademarks ('Globe', 'Cock', and 'Anil'). The petitioner argued that this seven-year pendency was causing undue hardship and eroding his goodwill due to unauthorized third-party use. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive compelling the Registrar to dispose of the pending application within eight weeks.

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