M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Sai Agrotech, F.M.D. (Farm Machinery Division)

Novartis AGvsNutra Specialities Pvt. Limited

Novartis AG filed a suit alleging that Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited was infringing its Indian Patent No. 212815 related to Vildagliptin API and formulations. The dispute was resolved after the defendant submitted an affidavit undertaking to cease all infringing activities, leading the court to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganizationvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2072/CHENP/2011) because the current set of amended claims were deemed beyond the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined whether the amendments expanded or narrowed the original claim scope and found that the specificity incorporated in the amended claims curtailed rather than expanded the original scope.

Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private LimitedvsDeputy Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court dismissed two appeals filed by Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private Limited challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to allow TM-16 applications. These applications permitted the substitution of the trademark applicant's name in pending opposition proceedings, citing that allowing the change would not prejudice the opponents' rights. The court noted the Appellant's lack of appearance and concluded that since the impugned order only related to the name change and did not affect the merits of the final opposition, the appeals were dismissed.

Fmc Agro Singapore Pte LtdvsThe Controller Of Patents

The appeal challenged the refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents, which rejected a second divisional application (grandchild application) because its claims were deemed to conflict with those in the original grandparent application. The appellant argued that filing the divisional application was necessitated by objections raised by the Controller. The High Court held that since the filing was a consequence of an objection, the division should be assessed on its own merits.

University College LondonvsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION'. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the specific submissions made by the appellant.