Torrent Pharma Limited v. Controller General Of Patents

FAO-IPD 3/2021

Torrent Pharma Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design which rejected its Patent Application No. 10885/DELNP/2015 for a product treating IBS. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court adjourned the matter.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
FAO-IPD 3/2021
Decision Date
29 April 2024

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 Torrent Pharma Limited vs Controller General Of Patents is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.M.P.No.6296 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.6297 OF 2005

M/s.Sri Balamurugan Modern Rice MillvsM/s.Subbulakshmi Modern Rice Mill

The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in a passing-off suit concerning rice. The plaintiff successfully argued that despite the defendant's attempts to distinguish their mark with added words, the strong familial and business connection between the parties made consumer confusion highly likely. Given the plaintiff's established prior use of the 'GOPURAM' mark since 1998, the court found a prima facie case for passing off, favoring the plaintiff.

patentSuit No. 4913 of 2000 (Court Receiver's Report No. 233 of 2018)

Nadeem Majid OomerbhoyvsRashid Sattar Oomerbhoy & Ors

The Bombay High Court intervened in a court-supervised licensing process for proprietary edible oil trademarks, citing concerns over the integrity of the bidding. The Judge found that media reports suggesting bias had compromised the neutrality of the auction, leading to only two bidders remaining (the Plaintiff and one Defendant). Consequently, the Court Receiver was directed to halt the current proceedings, return all existing deposits, and reissue advertisements under strict conditions of silence from all parties.

patentW.P.(C).No.14153 of 2009

Sri.R.S.Praveen RajvsController General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks

The Kerala High Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the trademark registration of religious symbols, specifically the picture of the Attukal deity. The petitioner argued that registering such an icon commercializes faith and violates fundamental rights. However, the court upheld the registrations, noting that while certain deities are prohibited from registration under specific government directions, the services registered (temple/social welfare) did not violate Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court cautioned against bypassing statutory remedies in favor of invoking Article 226.

patentFAO(OS) (COMM) 211/2023

Canva Pty Ltd & Ors.vsRxprism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.

Canva appealed a single judge's decision that had granted an interim injunction against its 'Present and Record' feature, alleging infringement of Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited's Indian Patent No. 360726. The appeal challenged the finding of infringement and the direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security.

patentWRIT PETITION NO.1486 OF 2022

Trutech MachineryvsController of Patents & Anr.

Trutech Machinery challenged the Assistant Controller's order allowing a patent application for an improved round corner cutting machine. The Petitioner raised objections under Section 25, including anticipation and lack of inventive step. The Court found no legal error in the summary inquiry conducted by the Controller and directed the Petitioner to seek revocation under Section 64.

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