Short Summary
NEC Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its Patent Application No.7830/CHENP/2014, which was based on the alleged violation of Section 7(2) of the Patents Act due to the date of declaration by an inventor. The court held that there is a distinction between the date of assignment and the date of declaration, finding the impugned order unsustainable.
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 Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in NEC Corporation vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Capital Foods Private LimitedvsRadiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal challenging a single judge's refusal to grant an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the respondent copied not only the registered trademark but also the stylization, color combination, get-up, and trade dress from the appellant. Despite arguments regarding descriptiveness and genericness, the High Court concluded that the appellant's mark had acquired secondary significance due to substantial sales and promotional investment, leading it to issue notice and stay the lower court's adverse findings.
Monsanto Holdings Private LimitedvsCompetition Commission Of India
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited challenged several orders issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) concerning allegations of unfair trade practices related to the 'trait fee' charged for using Bt. Cotton technology. The core dispute revolved around the licensing terms and recurring fees imposed by MMBL, a subsidiary in India. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, finding no reason to interfere with the CCI's administrative orders, provided they were not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd.vsNilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited, seeking permanent injunction against alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification or revocation. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registration period for the design had expired.
Nokia Technologies OyvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
The petitioner (Nokia Technologies Oy) filed an application seeking temporary injunction and disclosure of assets against the respondent (Guangdong Oppo Mobile). The court, while addressing various interlocutory applications, granted a direction for the defendants to furnish specific disclosures regarding their sales and revenues related to the alleged infringing devices.
Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors.vsJafar Ali
This appeal was filed by Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. challenging an ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in a suit for patent infringement. The appellants argued that the Commercial Court had incorrectly applied parameters suitable for trademark infringement, constituting a jurisdictional error. They also raised concerns regarding procedural lapses and prior litigation history which prejudiced their case. Despite finding merit in the contentions, the High Court decided to allow the matter to proceed before the Commercial Court to ensure a fair hearing on the interim relief application.
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.