Sintex Industries Ltd. v. Acme Tale Power Ltd And Anr (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited)

C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2022

Sintex Industries Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 2137154, titled "Phase Change Material," which was granted to Acme Tele Power Limited (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited). The court considered an affidavit from the respondent confirming that while they were previously in the telecom industry, their current focus is renewable energy and solar power projects. Crucially, the respondent stated they had no objection to the patent being revoked prospectively.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2022
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

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 Sintex Industries Ltd. vs Acme Tale Power Ltd And Anr (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(OS) 2680/2008

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company & OrsvsDr.Bps Reddy & Ors

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants regarding infringement of Patent No. 203937 concerning DASATINIB API. The court addressed three applications: one to implead Hetero Labs Ltd., one to delete Dr. BPS Reddy, and one to implead Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland as the assignee. All three applications were allowed.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 72/2024, I.A. 31278-31279/2024

Abbott Products Operations AgvsMr. Muheen Khan & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Abbott Products Operations Ag to cancel the trademark registration 'DUFAKWIK' (No. 4459400) in Class 05. The cancellation was achieved through a mutual agreement, as both parties agreed that the mark should be removed from the Register without any claim for damages. This order provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved efficiently through negotiated settlements before the court.

patentW.P.(IPD)No.3 of 2025

Vignesh Kumar SivakumarvsThe Assistant Registrar of Trademarks

The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar against the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks. The court quashed the order that deemed his word mark application 'LABAPEN' abandoned due to failure to respond to an opposition notice. Citing previous precedent, the court held that service via email alone is insufficient when the applicant cannot prove receipt, thereby protecting the substantive rights of trademark applicants. Consequently, both the application and the opposition were restored for fresh consideration.

patentNC: 2023:KHC:23865-DB

M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd.vsSvn Prestige Garden

The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. against a lower court's decision to return its trademark infringement suit. The appellant argued that the requirement for pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply because they had simultaneously sought urgent ad-interim injunction relief. The High Court agreed, holding that suits seeking urgent interim relief are exempt from this mandate, thereby setting aside the lower court's order and allowing the main suit to proceed.

patentCS(COMM) 675/2018 & connected

Wrangler Apparel CorporationvsH.S. Kishori Lal & Ors.

The Delhi High Court addressed a request to stay a trademark infringement suit while separate rectification petitions questioning the validity of the trademarks were pending. Citing recent legal precedents, particularly following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the court ruled that there is no need to stay the civil suit. Instead, it ordered the consolidation of the main suit and all related rectification petitions to be tried together before the High Court.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call