Short Summary
The petition challenges the action of Respondent No.1 (Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks) for accepting a Counter Statement filed by Respondent No.2 beyond the statutory two-month period stipulated under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court noted that the matter would be heard ex-parte against Respondent No.2 due to non-appearance despite service.
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 Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Pt Tech, Llc vs The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
AIC246 AG & Co. KGvsThe Patent Office of India and Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a fungicide combination. The core issue was that the Petitioner was not granted a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act before the rejection, despite the statutory framework requiring such a procedure. The Court found this omission arbitrary and contrary to the law.
Kinjal Ramesh SavlavsEuphoric Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit between Kinjal Ramesh Savla and Euphoric Innovations Pvt. Ltd., recognizing the complexity arising from conflicting trademarks ('Buckaroo' vs 'Walkaroo'). The court granted both parties leave to apply for rectification of their respective trademarks before the Appellate Board, ensuring that the underlying validity issues are addressed first. Furthermore, the defendant's application regarding perjury was adjourned until the main suit hearing.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt LtdvsMikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, which covers a specific suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. Although the defendant conceded to the grant of permanent injunction, the court also directed notice to an e-commerce website (AgriBegri) regarding the listing of the infringing product 'DYNA' to investigate commercial sales.
Pushpendra Patel & Anr.vsAmazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to the plaintiffs, who are innovators in water purification systems. The court found a prima facie case suggesting that the defendant's trademark complaint was fraudulent and based on copied designs. Consequently, the court directed Amazon Seller Services (Defendant No. 1) to immediately re-list all de-listed product postings belonging to the plaintiff, while also restraining future arbitrary de-listings.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private LimitedvsUnion of India
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited challenged the granting of Indian Patent No. 439474, which was issued despite a rejected pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner. The core dispute centered on whether the Controller had adequately reasoned and considered the material evidence presented by both parties regarding novelty and inventive step. Although the court initially questioned the maintainability of the writ petition as an appeal in disguise, it ultimately allowed the petitioner to file a post-grant opposition.
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.