Short Summary
The petitioner filed a writ appeal claiming that the respondent, APDCL, was infringing its patent rights related to a Prepaid/Postpaid Electricity Supply Machine. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the remedy for patent infringement is compensation or injunction under the Patents Act, 1970, the matter must be heard by a Civil Court of competent 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 Gauhati High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR. vs Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Mr. Shammi Narang & AnrvsPindrop Music App Private Limited
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction favoring Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr against Pindrop Music App Private Limited. The court found that both parties held registered trademarks, but crucially, they operated in different classes (Class 41 for the plaintiff's studio services and Class 42 for the defendant's mobile application). Citing Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act, the court ruled that since the marks were not used in the same class, infringement could not be established at this stage. The ruling prioritized the balance of convenience in favor of the growing startup.
Saint Gobain Abrasives IncvsController Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application, which cited three pieces of prior art (D1, D2, D3) as making the invention obvious. The court found that the impugned order failed to provide a useful analysis of how the combination of prior arts led to the conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, the court noted the rejection of amendments lacked proper discussion.
Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa (Trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store) and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private LimitedvsG.Kannan (Trading as D.S.K.Garments)
This case involved a suit filed by Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited against G.Kannan and Hitlar Fashions for alleged infringement of their trademark 'TECHNO' and copyright in artistic works used on garments. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits. Ultimately, a compromise was reached between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And AnrvsYogi Products
This was a Commercial IP Suit filed by Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd and another against Yogi Products concerning alleged infringement of trade dress and copyright relating to pickle containers. The Plaintiffs marketed their product as 'Milton Pickle Container' while the Defendants sold a competing product called 'Apex Pickle Container'. The parties settled all disputes through Consent Terms executed during the hearing, with the Defendant submitting to a decree on admission restraining it from manufacturing, marketing, or selling products under the impugned trade dress, artwork, or packaging deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' products.
Novartis AG & Anr.vsZydus Lifesciences Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning Indian Patent No. IN'655 covering the compound 'Dabrafenib'. The defendant, through counsel, undertook before the court not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The suit was disposed of and decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking, with the plaintiffs not pressing their monetary reliefs.
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.