Short Summary
The plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, sued defendants for patent infringement concerning its self-propelled combine harvester (HARVES KING). Defendant No. 3 filed an application seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC.
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. Understanding the court's reasoning in Kubota Corporation vs Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
B.M. Birla Heart Research CentrevsShree Rajmoti Industries
The dispute concerned a proposed opposition to a trade mark application (Application No. 1279800). The question before the Tribunal was whether the notice of opposition filed by Shree Rajmoti Industries on August 28, 2006, was within the prescribed statutory period, considering procedural delays and late receipt of Trade Marks Journals.
Fives Combustion Systems P LtdvsVadodara-I
The appellant challenged the demand raised by the revenue regarding royalty payments made for technical knowhow supplied by a foreign company. The core issue was whether this payment constituted a taxable intellectual property service under Indian law, given that the service provider was not governed by any Indian law.
Uab Research Foundation And AnrvsController General Of Patents And Designs
The Uab Research Foundation appealed against an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The impugned order refused to grant a patent application titled 'Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase as Enzymatic Activator of Nucleoside Prodrugs' because the claims were deemed to fall within the scope of Section 3(i) of the Act.
United Foods Public Company LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed United Foods Public Company Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its word mark 'YOYO'. The Registry had cited striking similarity to several existing marks. Recognizing that the appellant was willing to modify the application, the court remanded the matter back to the Respondent. The Appellant is now directed to amend the application into a label mark within eight weeks, allowing the Registrar to re-examine the modified mark.
Rxprism Health Systems Private LimitedvsCanva Pty Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application alleging that the defendant was non-compliant with a prior court order by promoting or advertising the 'Present and Record' feature on its global website, potentially inviting Indian users to circumvent restrictions using VPNs. The Court found that while the feature is not available for download in India (which constitutes compliance), the defendant must take steps to ensure customer care does not suggest or exhort users to use VPNs to access the feature.
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.