Short Summary
Kanishk Sinha filed a suit alleging patent infringement against Dr Saumitra Mohan & Ors. The plaintiff sought urgent interim relief but failed to satisfy the court regarding the necessity for dispensing with procedural formalities under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court granted one further opportunity to the plaintiff to address these formal requirements.
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. Understanding the court's reasoning in Kanishk Sinha vs Dr Saumitra Mohan & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITEDvsWHEELS INDIA LIMITED
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.
RRR Motion Pictures And OrsvsShahe Ali
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking to set aside an order that framed issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether the Petitioners' request for permission to file a rectification petition under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been properly considered. The Court clarified that while a civil court must examine the prima facie tenability of an invalidity plea, this process is not equivalent to granting 'permission.' It directed the Commercial Court to decide on the validity application before proceeding with the main infringement trial.
Cello Plastic Industrial Work And Ors.vsAjay Shantilal Raka
The Bombay High Court issued an interim order in a trademark dispute involving Cello Plastic Industrial Work and Ajay Shantilal Raka. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to produce specific application and opposition records before the next hearing date. This procedural step indicates that the case is actively moving forward, requiring both parties to prepare for detailed examination of the relevant intellectual property filings.
M/S Micolube India LimitedvsRakesh Kumar Trading As Saurabh Industries & Ors
M/S Micolube India Limited filed a suit against Rakesh Kumar Trading As Saurabh Industries for infringement of its registered container design. The dispute centered on the similarity of the designs, with both parties holding registrations from the same office. The defendants challenged the validity and scope of the plaintiff's rights, raising complex legal questions regarding concurrent registration and the applicability of passing off alongside statutory design law. Given the judicial inconsistency in existing precedents, the court decided to refer these fundamental issues to a larger bench for an authoritative ruling.
Pankaj Sales CorporationvsIndra Jain Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed an execution petition filed by Pankaj Sales Corporation against Indra Jain Industries. The dispute centered on whether the judgment debtor was violating a consensual decree related to trademark use. The court ruled that while the defendant was bound by the settlement agreement regarding specific registered trademarks (TRISHUL/TRIDENT and TRISHUL), the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over an unreferenced label design presented in the execution petition. Consequently, the attempt to enforce the alleged violation failed.
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.