T-Mobile Usa Inc v. Controller Of Patents

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 269/2022

T-Mobile USA Inc appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for 'Preferred Contact Group Centric Interface'. The Controller refused the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art and arguing that the invention was essentially a computer program per se, lacking technical effect beyond normal hardware interaction.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 269/2022
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 T-Mobile Usa Inc vs Controller Of Patents is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 637/2024

Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And AnrvsKs Agro Impex And Anr

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd against Ks Agro Impex. The court found that the defendant's use of a nearly identical packaging and mark ('ZARDA SPECIAL') created a significant likelihood of consumer confusion with the plaintiff's 'Zarda King' product. This ruling protects the plaintiff's trade dress, which was deemed both an original trade dress under the Trade Marks Act and an original artistic work under the Copyright Act.

patentCS(COMM) 574/2025

Lt Foods LimitedvsMurli Flour Mills P Ltd

Lt Foods Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Murli Flour Mills P Ltd in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, a major player in the rice and food category, alleged that the defendant was infringing its registered trademarks 'DAAWAT' and 'DAWAT' by using an identical mark for premium 'Jeera'. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, granting immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.

patentCONT.CAS(C) 973/2019 & CM APPL. 47923/2019

R.H Agro Overseas Pvt LtdvsSweety Jain, Proprietor Of Mahajan Foods & Ors

The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed by R.H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd against Sweety Jain and others regarding alleged breach of an earlier court undertaking. The respondent parties provided a fresh, binding undertaking to the court, promising not to misuse the petitioner's registered trademark 'NAFIS' or its associated copyright in any manner. With both parties agreeing to this resolution, the court formally disposed of the pending litigation.

patentC/CS/2/2017

Galatea LtdvsDiyora And Bhanderi Corporation

Galatea Ltd filed a suit seeking protection against the infringement of its patent (No. 271425), which covers automated technology for locating inclusions in rough diamonds. The plaintiffs claimed their invention revolutionized the diamond industry by providing accurate 3D imaging and cutting plans to maximize stone value. While the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient for granting a temporary injunction, it issued specific interim restraints against the defendants regarding bubble removal devices and sales of infringing machines.

patentDLST010047282019 (ARBTN No. : 31/2019)

M/S Fiitjee Ltd.vsAbhishek Sapra

M/S Fiitjee Ltd. challenged an arbitral award, alleging that Abhishek Sapra violated a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and service contract by diverting vital company information during his employment as Financial Controller. The petitioner sought damages for this breach. The Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court cannot review the dispute on merits or set aside the award without finding patent illegality.

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