M/s.Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. M/s.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office

Meenu (Trading As M/S Albro Industries)vsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by Meenu (M/S Albro Industries) in an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order. The court condoned a 11-day delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and allowed the appellant exemption from submitting original documents. The core dispute, concerning whether a counter statement was properly served during opposition proceedings for the 'AIRODO' trademark, has been listed before the Joint Registrar to complete service, setting the stage for further litigation.

TRANS UNION, LLCvsThe Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks

Trans Union, LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application (No. 4268/CHE/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, which rejected it primarily on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the system and method for matching database records was inherently technical, providing a solution to data quality issues in emerging markets. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the invention involved technical considerations implemented by hardware, but remanded the matter to refine the claims' scope and ensure adequate enablement.

Interdigital Technology CorporationvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of the Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a consistent disclosure model, directing that all seven PLAs held by the plaintiffs and the full Qualcomm agreement held by the defendants must be shown to all members of the Confidentiality Club.

Pharmacyclics LlcvsDeputy Controller Of Patents & Designs

Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application. The rejection was based on alleged scope changes and reliance on the parent application's claims. The High Court found that the divisional application should be treated as a substantive application, not bearing on the outcome of the parent, thus setting aside the impugned order.

Alfa Laval Corporate AbvsClean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited & Anr.

The Plaintiff filed an application seeking directions for the inspection of heat exchanger plates manufactured by the Defendant and taking on record relevant documents. The Court, relying on Section 115(1) of The Patents Act, appointed a Scientific Advisor to conduct an inspection and provide a detailed report comparing the impugned products with Patent No. 322307.