Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 29/2022

The appeal concerns the patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). The court heard arguments regarding the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent was given an opportunity to file an affidavit on whether the subject patent makes a technical contribution or effect.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 29/2022
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

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 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentW.P.(C) No. 610 of 2010

R.G. Oswal Hosiery IndustriesvsUnion Of India & Ors.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by R.G. Oswal Hosiery Industries against an IPAB order that allowed rectification of its trademarks, DOLLOR (Nos. 249986 and 291763). The court held that the subsequent renewals were vitiated because they were filed by M/s. Kedia Knitwear, a mere licensee, who falsely represented themselves as the registered proprietor. This established a strict requirement under the Trade Marks Rules that only the registered owner can apply for renewal.

patentC.S.No.462 of 2019

M/s.Radiant Cash Management ServicesvsAll in Pictures

M/s. Radiant Cash Management Services filed a suit against All in Pictures alleging infringement of its exclusive trademark, 'Radiant,' related to the screening of the film 'GORRILA.' The plaintiff sought permanent injunction and damages for the alleged misuse of the mark. However, during the hearing, the defendant submitted an affidavit stating that the matter had been settled out of court.

patentMA(F) No. 1(K) of 2014

M/s.Vijay IndustriesvsVijay Solvex Limited

M/s. Vijay Industries appealed against the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dimapur's order which returned their plaint. The suit alleged infringement of the 'SCOOTER' trademark and associated artwork by Respondent No. 1 (Vijay Solvex Limited) and its agent. The core dispute revolved around whether the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the lower court's decision regarding jurisdiction.

patentC.S.No.33 of 2014

Mr.Mohammed NiyamathullahvsMr.Mohammed Hidayathulla

This civil suit was filed by Mr. Mohammed Niyamathullah seeking a permanent injunction against defendants for infringing his copyright in the Tamil feature film, “Pongadee Neengalaum Unga Kadhalum.” The core of the dispute revolved around an Assignment Deed executed on 09.10.2013, where the plaintiff provided financial assistance to the defendant (who was venturing into film production) and subsequently acquired the entire copyright under default clauses. Despite the defendants' claims of forgery and lack of funds, the court found that the assignment deed was validly established through evidence, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.

patentCS(COMM) 86/2019 and CRL.M.A. 7544/2019

M/S Laxmi Agro Impex IndiavsM/S Ladli India Commodities

In a dispute concerning the trade mark 'LADLI/SABKI LADLI', the Delhi High Court addressed parallel proceedings related to trademark rectification. Recognizing that simultaneous litigation could lead to multiplicity of suits, the court permitted both parties to withdraw their respective pending rectification petitions. This decision aims to consolidate the issues and streamline the legal process for a comprehensive trial.

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