Nripendra Kashyap v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs

(T)CMA(PT) No.184 of 2023

The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting his patent application for a reference signal design in cellular communication systems, citing objections under Sections 10(4) and 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the amendments were merely cosmetic substitutions and criticized the Controller's cryptic rejection, ultimately allowing the appeal.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
(T)CMA(PT) No.184 of 2023
Judge(s)
N.Seshasayee

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Nripendra Kashyap vs Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 1078/2018

Hero Motocorp LimitedvsShree Amba Industries

Hero Motocorp Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging that the latter was infringing Hero's registered design (No. 271199) of a motorcycle front fender used on the HERO HF DELUXE model. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's product was a copy and constituted piracy. However, while examining the prima facie case for an interim injunction, the court found that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, noting that consumers could make informed choices between OEM and third-party parts. Consequently, the application for interim injunction was dismissed.

patentIPDPTA/98/2023

JW Pharmaceutical Corporation (Formerly Choongwae Pharma Corporation)vsController General of Patent and Designs and Anr

The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.

patent8-ial-11367-2025

Unilever Global Ip LimitedvsAs Print Pack Global Private Limited

The Plaintiffs sought permission from the Bombay High Court to combine their cause of action involving infringement and passing off. The court allowed the interim application. Furthermore, the suit against Defendant No. 4 was disposed of based on Consent Minutes of the Order, while the suit continued against Defendants No. 1 to 3.

patentCS(COMM) 879/2022

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.vsOm Prakash Gupta

In a case concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights, Tata Sons sought judicial assistance to manage seized counterfeit products. The Delhi High Court granted the application, appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the warehouse where 624 packages of fake TATA TEA PREMIUM were stored. This order allows Plaintiffs to draw samples for trial purposes while also granting them liberty to destroy the remaining inventory, ensuring the chain of custody is maintained.

patentCS(COMM) 239/2019 & connected matters (Delhi High Court)

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr.vsVee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited

This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma seeking permanent injunction against various Indian pharmaceutical companies for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The court examined the applications for interim injunction and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the judge expressed concerns regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing the defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call