Short Summary
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust filed two Original Petitions seeking the revocation and removal of Patents No. 207233 and 234103, both held by M/s. Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., in the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to transfer these matters for adjudication regarding patent invalidity. However, the court noted that both patents had already expired on March 24, 2019. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed 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 Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust vs M/s.Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ralson India LimitedvsSham Lal M/S Ramesh Lal And Sons And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ralson India Limited against the Trade Marks Registry's decision that had allowed the registration of 'R RALSON'. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email, facilitated through an agent's filing (Form TM-M), constituted valid service under the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that while general court practice allows for email service, in this specific trade mark opposition context, the validity of service depended on clear provisions within the application or notice itself; however, it granted Ralson liberty to pursue a cancellation petition based on the mark's registered status.
Telerad Private Ltd.vsJugmug Electric & Radio Co.
The Delhi High Court upheld the cancellation of the 'Telerad' trademark registered by Jugmug Electric & Radio Co. The court found that despite the goods being in different classes (Class 9 vs Class II), the likelihood of deception and confusion was high because both types of electrical goods were sold through common trade channels, and customers generally associate these products with the same type of manufacturer. This ruling emphasizes that contextual factors, such as shared markets, are critical when assessing trademark conflicts under Section 11(a).
Pawan Kumar GoelvsDr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of Patent 369150, which covers a novel process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop the defendants from using or manufacturing the subject compound. However, the court noted evidence presented by the defendants showing they were already manufacturing the compound through a similar process prior to the patent application date.
Manu ChaudharyvsController Of Patents
Manu Chaudhary appealed against the Controller of Patents' order dated May 31, 2023, which refused his patent application (No. 2545/DEL/2010). The refusal was based on non-fulfillment of various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearings.
Terex India Private LimitedvsCde Asia Ltd.
Terex India Private Limited appealed an order refusing its post-grant opposition against Indian Patent No. 307249, which was granted to CDE Asia Ltd. The appellant argued that the Deputy Controller's decision failed to provide independent reasoning or address key legal submissions regarding patentability and prior art. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, quashing it and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
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.