Short Summary
The Regents of the University of California appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding their patent application for 'Blockade of Inflammatory Proteases with Theta Defensins'. The rejection primarily hinged on objections related to novelty and inventive step, compounded by concerns over the permissibility of claim amendments under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendments served only as explanations or incorporated facts already disclosed, thereby allowing the application to be remanded for fresh examination.
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. Understanding the court's reasoning in The Regents Of The University Of California vs Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Yonex Co., Ltd.vsSumit Girdhar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Yonex Co., Ltd. against Sumit Girdhar and others regarding counterfeit goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case showing that defendants were dealing in counterfeit badminton equipment using the protected YONEX mark. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from selling or advertising any products bearing the YONEX mark or similar variations, pending further proceedings.
Sterlite Technologies LimitedvsHfcl Limited
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Hfcl Limited for infringing its Indian Patent No. IN335369, which relates to optical fiber cables (OFCs). The defendant challenged the patent's validity and sought vacation of the ex-parte injunction. The court found serious doubt regarding the novelty and inventive nature of the suit patent.
Aga Medical CorporationvsMr. Faisal Kapadi And Anr.
Aga Medical Corporation sought an ad-interim injunction against Mr. Faisal Kapadi and others, alleging that their manufacturing and sale of 'Blockaid' occlusion devices and use of similar brochures infringed on Aga's copyright and constituted passing off. The court examined the prima facie case, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a clear case of infringement or deceptive similarity.
Abs Global, Inc.vsCytonome/ST, LLC
Abs Global, Inc. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 240790 granted to Cytonome/ST, LLC. However, the court noted that leave had been granted in another proceeding for the petitioner (and defendants) to withdraw the revocation proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the current petition as withdrawn.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt LtdvsM/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court decreed a civil suit filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd against M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises concerning trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The dispute involved the use of the 'OLD MADRAS BAKING COMPANY' mark across various classes and digital platforms. Crucially, the court accepted a Memo of Compromise and Trademark Assignment Deed signed by both parties, leading to the suit being settled and decreed without costs.
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.