Short Summary
The defendant filed an application seeking the return of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action had accrued in Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were selling infringing fans and conducting business in the state. The court dismissed the application, holding that the defendants' techno-commercial offer made in Baddi demonstrated they were carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction.
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 Himachal Pradesh High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Novenco Building & Industry A/S vs Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited CompanyvsZee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Zee Laboratories Limited and others for manufacturing and selling generic Apixaban products ('Apixaz' and 'Apiquis') that infringed Patent No. IN 247381. The court noted that the patent had expired on September 17, 2022. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, but directions were issued regarding the removal of listings from e-commerce platforms.
Vinit DuavsPrashant Mani Tripathi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Vinit Dua, to register his trademark infringement claim against Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors. The court found that a prima facie case of infringement was made out because the defendant's mark, 'AFFINITY ELEVE,' is highly likely to deceive customers into associating it with the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AF FINITY.' Consequently, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the confusingly similar mark while the suit proceeds.
Haw Par Brothers International LimitedvsRangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order of the Calcutta High Court (Intellectual Property Rights Division) in an interlocutory application (IA No. GA-COM/1/2026) filed in the main proceeding IPDATM/249/2023. The petitioner, Haw Par Brothers International Limited, sought restoration of the main application, which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. The court noted that service of the restoration application, filed on 7th August, 2026, was not yet complete and directed the matter to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.
M/s. Ttk Prestige LimitedvsMr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali
In a case involving trademark and copyright infringement, M/s. TTK Prestige Limited successfully reached a memorandum of compromise with the defendant, Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit in its favor. Crucially, the judgment also allowed all rectification petitions filed by the plaintiff, leading to the expungement of several deceptively similar trade mark and copyright registrations from the respective registries.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt LtdvsOura Health Oy & Anr.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.
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.