Short Summary
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking protection of its confidential IBR technology, which was developed by key employees who later joined a competing entity (Defendant No.3). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants disclosed this proprietary information, leading to similar patent applications being filed by Defendant No.3, naming the former employees as inventors.
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 Sterlite Technologies Limited vs Anupam Singh & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Cadila Healthcare Ltd.vsUnion Of India And Ors.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. challenged an order that rejected its petition seeking to treat a trademark opposition (filed by M/s. Wockhordt Ltd.) as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing evidence was prejudicial. The court examined the Registrar's power to grant extensions under Section 101 of the Act and held that such an extension is permissible, thus saving the opposition proceedings.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLCvsAssistant Controller of Patents
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5584/CHENP/2010). The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and exclusion as a computer program per se. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the invention possesses enhanced technical effect and meets the inventive step criteria.
Sujatha RajkumarvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks
Sujatha Rajkumar filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention against the Registrar of Trade Marks for the undue delay in processing an application related to the assignment of her trademark 'VELVETTE'. The petitioner sought recognition of the subsequent proprietor based on an Assignment Deed. While the court did not rule on the merits of the assignment, it issued a binding direction to the Respondent to dispose of the pending application within six weeks, treating the counsel's assurance as a formal undertaking.
Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. KgvsThe Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Sew-Eurodrive, setting aside the Trademark Registry's order that declared their marks 'SEW' and 'SEW-EURODRIVE' abandoned. The court criticized the Registry for failing to provide timely alerts regarding procedural changes posted only on its website, noting that applicants cannot be expected to monitor the site 24/7. Consequently, the applications were restored to the file of the Trademarks Registry to proceed based on their merits.
Provivi, Inc.vsThe Controller Of Patents And Designs
Provivi, Inc. challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application based on alleged non-receipt of hearing notices and lack of a reasoned decision. The petitioner argued that it was denied an opportunity to be heard before the refusal order dated 30.05.2023 was passed. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and lacked reasons, setting it aside.
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.