Short Summary
The appellants filed an appeal challenging a single bench order that had dismissed their writ petition. The original petition questioned the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court admitted the appeal but dismissed the prayer for stay, stating that the statute remains valid until struck down.
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 Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side). Understanding the court's reasoning in Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha vs Union of India is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries LimitedvsGlenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to a pharmaceutical product and involves a dispute over trademark validity.
Astrazeneca Pharma India LimitedvsThe National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority & Ors.
Astrazeneca challenged several orders and notifications issued by NPPA regarding overcharging on its drug, OSIMERTINIB (TAGRISSO). The petitioner argued that the drug is patented and qualifies for a five-year exemption from price controls under DPCO, 2013. The Court directed NPPA to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the data supplied by the petitioner.
Kores (India) LimitedvsDoms Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order that rejected the request to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core dispute involved whether Kores' product infringed Doms' registered trademarks for 'DOMS NEON' pencils. While acknowledging the defendant's need to challenge the validity of the registrations, the court ultimately upheld the Commercial Court's decision regarding the immediate framing of additional issues, noting that all issues related to trademark validity must be dealt with by a specialized Tribunal (under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) and not the civil court.
Pfizer Inc And OrsvsJodas Expoim Pvt Ltd And Anr
The court framed several issues in this commercial suit concerning alleged patent infringement by the defendants against Pfizer Inc and Ors. The core questions revolve around whether the defendants' activities infringe two specific Indian Patents (No. 218291 and No. 209251) and if the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction or damages.
Octave ApparelsvsNirmal Kumar Trading As Apricot Fashion Alloy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration ('METTLE') and simultaneously considered a related injunction suit. Recognizing the identical issues and parties, the court exercised its power under Section 24 CPC to transfer the pending commercial suit from the District Court to be tried alongside the present rectification petition in the High Court. This consolidation streamlines the legal process for both parties involved.
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.