Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr. v. The Controller Of Patents & Ors.

C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021 & I.As. 13644/2021, 3420/2022; C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 1/2022 & I.A. 3570/2022

This judgment addressed an application seeking dismissal of a patent revocation petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The court examined Section 64 of the Patents Act and the concept of a 'person interested'.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021 & I.As. 13644/2021, 3420/2022; C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 1/2022 & I.A. 3570/2022
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr. vs The Controller Of Patents & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 7/2025

Fresenius Kabi Ipsum SrlvsThe Asst Controller Of Patent And Designs & Anr.

Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated November 21, 2024, which refused Patent Application No. IN201611009993. The court issued notices and set dates for further submissions.

patentCS(COMM) 671/2023

Cashgrail Private LimitedvsBlue Horizone Infotech Llp

The Delhi High Court has formally registered the suit filed by Cashgrail Private Limited against Blue Horizone Infotech LLP concerning alleged infringement of online games and trademarks. Cashgrail claims that the defendant's 'LUDO TOURNAMENT' replicates essential features of its proprietary skill-based games, such as 'Ludo Supreme League.' The court allowed the suit to proceed while ensuring the defendant receives an opportunity to respond before any interim orders are passed.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2022

Ganraj EnterprisesvsLand Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing the Respondent No. 1 to file several additional documents in the ongoing trademark litigation. The application sought modification of a prior order, primarily to bring on record evidence concerning the change of ownership of trademarks and detailed arguments regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between the parties' marks. This procedural step allows the court to consider complex issues related to assignment dates and examination objections.

patentCS.(Comm.Div)No. 356 of 2020

V.K.R. VenkatesanvsS.Athiappan

V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against S.Athiappan, Proprietor of Chitra Enterprises, alleging infringement of his registered trademarks ('SIVAJI' and 'V.K.R. SIVAJI BRAND') and copyright over artistic works. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SIVAJI GOLD'. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.

patent(T)CMA(TM) Nos.13,14,15, 111 & 116 of 2023

Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation LimitedvsN.Ananda Trading as M/s.Nandhini

The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the Trademark Registry's decision to dismiss its oppositions. The court found that while there was a similarity between the marks NANDINI and NANDHINI, the Registrar failed to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the opposition proceedings were remitted back to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to impose necessary conditions to allow both parties to peacefully co-exist in their respective businesses.

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