Short Summary
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.5542/CHENP/2010), which was rejected primarily on grounds that the claimed 6E4 antibody was an inherent feature and not patent-eligible under Section 3(c) as it was discovered in nature. The High Court set aside the rejection, holding that the specific method of production made the antibody patentable.
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 Immunas Pharma, Inc. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Fybros Electric Private LimitedvsHira Lal Jain Trading As Vikram Cable Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Private Limited's petition, directing the removal of the rival trademark 'NEBROS' from the trade mark register. The court found that NEBROS was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier marks and covered identical goods (wires and cables) in Class 9. Given the likelihood of public confusion, the High Court ruled that the registration of NEBROS should not be upheld.
Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd.vsAnand Aggarwal And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd., preventing the defendants from using the identical trademark 'HUALI'. The Plaintiff successfully argued that despite the Defendant securing a statutory registration, their prior and extensive common law usage established significant goodwill and market reputation for the mark. The court found that the Defendants' adoption was dishonest and likely to cause irreparable consumer confusion, thus protecting the Plaintiff's brand equity.
S.Sudhakar, S.Dhinakar, Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods (W.P.(IPD).No.27)vsThe Registrar of Trademarks / The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks (W.P.(IPD).No.27 & 28)
The Madras High Court addressed two related Writ Petitions concerning the trademark TM No.595393. In W.P.(IPD) No.27, the court directed the Trademark Registry to rectify entries and update the digitalized TM-I form to correctly reflect the registered proprietor's name as requested by the petitioners. For W.P.(IPD) No.28, the Court mandated that the Registrar proceed with the pending application filed by a third respondent while simultaneously considering the petitioner's representations regarding rejection of that claim, requiring appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Vifor (International) AgvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Vifor (International) Ag filed an appeal against an order dated November 1, 2023, along with an application seeking condonation of a 32-day delay. The appellant argued the delay was due to technical difficulties in obtaining and stamping a Power of Attorney received from Switzerland. The court found that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay and allowed the application.
Akums Drugs An Pharmaceuticals LimitedvsMedivinc Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Akums Drugs against Medivinc Healthcare. The court granted exemptions for various procedural requirements, including pre-institution mediation and advance service to defendants. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to secure evidence and prevent further infringement.
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.