Short Summary
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888. The petition, which sought to challenge the patent's validity, was contingent on its active status. However, upon submission of a document from the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, it was revealed that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
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 Reliance Industries Ltd. vs M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.vsThe Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addresses complex jurisdictional issues arising after the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The court examined three proceedings: two revocation petitions and one appeal under the Patents Act, 1970. In C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021, the court considered a petition to revoke Patent No. IN 268846. However, in other cases, the court ruled that jurisdiction was lacking because the appropriate office or another High Court already held the matter, preventing parties from pursuing parallel proceedings.
Ramji Lal AgarwalvsSourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute over the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' could be heard in a regular civil court or required a Commercial Court. The core issue revolved around classifying the conflict, which arose from a family arrangement concerning business goodwill, as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court ultimately held that since the reliefs sought involved perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, the matter squarely fell within the purview of intellectual property rights and thus constituted a Commercial Suit.
Prabin Kumar ShahvsManoj Kumar Jagnani And Ors
The Calcutta High Court heard an application for rectification filed by Prabin Kumar Shah seeking cancellation of Trademark No. 1553036 in Class 30. The court noted that the respondent's mark appeared to be slavishly imitating the petitioner's mark. Given the respondent's proposal to change the impugned mark (in color and font), the Court granted them an opportunity to revise it, while also directing them to adhere to a prior binding decree from the District Court at Bokaro.
Dabur India LimitedvsWellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registration of 'WELLFORD PUDIN HARA' (Registration No. 5509160) in favor of Dabur India Limited, who challenged the mark's validity. Dabur successfully established a prima facie case based on its long-standing use and reputation of the core mark 'PUDIN HARA' since 1930. The court found that the Impugned Mark completely subsumes the Petitioner's mark, creating an irrefutable likelihood of confusion and deception in the market.
Astellas Pharma IncvsEverest Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astellas Pharma Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of its Indian Patent No. 292990 by Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited and others. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendants 8 and 9 to cease marketing and listing of the infringing product GILTERNIB.
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.