Short Summary
The appellants appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application (No. 202111053480). The subject matter related to 'black coloured wearing' and its alleged effects on human health, which the Controller rejected as non-technical and an abstract theory lacking scientific evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal both on merits and due to the inordinate delay in filing.
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 Mr Abhishek Sharma & Anr. vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Abhoy Kumar JainvsVrajlal Manilal & Company And Others
The Delhi High Court intervened in a dispute over trademark rectification, setting aside an ex parte order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner successfully argued that the original decision failed to consider their statement of defense and material evidence. Consequently, the court restored the petitioner's mark 'Tufan' on the register and remitted the case back to the IPAB for a fair reconsideration, emphasizing procedural fairness over substantive merits.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.vsInterdigital Technolgy Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile appealed a judgment regarding the payment and security requirements for using Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Interdigital. The dispute centered on whether the appellants were unduly penalized for non-compliance with previous consent terms involving global bank guarantees. The Court issued directions requiring the defendants to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee from an Indian public sector bank instead of relying solely on foreign guarantees, allowing them continued use of the SEPs.
Mr.Rahul BaggavsThe Controller of Patent
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an abandonment order related to his patent application (No. 202041009246). The petitioner argued that he was unable to upload the response to the First Examination Report on the deadline due to technical/server errors on the respondent's website. The court found merit in this claim and ordered the abandonment quashed, directing the respondent to accept the response.
Monsanto Technology LlcvsUnion Of India
Monsanto Technology LLC challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 6560/CHENP/2008) by the Patent Office. The court found that the impugned order breached principles of natural justice because it referenced sections and paragraphs (like Section 10(4)(a), (b), (c) and paragraph 53) that were neither in the First Examination Report nor in the subsequent hearing notice.
Sri.Hitesh Chouhan, Proprietor M/s.Metro MarketingvsSri.Ganapathlal, Proprietor M/s.Jaya Stationery
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'LEO' registered by Sri.Ganapathlal. The court found that the respondent adopted a near-identical mark for identical goods (rubber bands), and this adoption was deemed dishonest and fraudulent, especially given prior undertakings to change the branding. Consequently, the registration certificate was cancelled, maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
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.