Roland Corporation v. Hi Tone Electronics

Osaka UniversityvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Osaka University appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 3495/DELNP/2012) for 'Bridged Artificial Nucleoside and Nucleotide'. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Edward Charles Troppi SmythevsThe Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks, Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs, Union Of India

The petitioner filed an Indian patent application related to satellite conjunction prediction. The deadline for filing the request for examination lapsed because the Indian Patent Agent mistakenly calculated the deadline, leading to a rejection by the Patent Office. The court allowed the petition, finding that there was no intent to abandon the application.

Ovid Therapeutics, Inc.vsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Ovid Therapeutics appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for 'Methods of Increasing Tonic Inhibition and Treating Secondary Insomnia'. The initial rejection cited multiple grounds, including non-patentability (Section 3(i) and 3(e)), lack of inventive step, and insufficient disclosure. Ovid Therapeutics argued that their composition offered a synergistic effect and provided novel dosage information not present in the prior art. This appeal challenges the Controller's decision to refuse patent protection for the pharmaceutical methods.

Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.)vsGlorious Investment Limited And Anr.

The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.

Danone And Pacific Holdings Pte LtdvsAlvo Life Sciences And Ors & Ors

The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark infringement suit involving Danone And Pacific Holdings and Alvo Life Sciences. The court formally decreed the suit against defendants 1 through 7 based on a previously executed Memorandum of Compromise, which included payments and undertakings to cease infringing use. Furthermore, the court accepted an offer from defendant 11 to settle the dispute, directing them to deposit damages, thereby facilitating a resolution for all parties involved.