Short Summary
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The appellant argued that the respondent's order was cryptic, failing to discuss prior arts or submitted evidence like a US patent grant. The High Court found merit in these arguments and allowed the appeal.
Detailed Summary
In
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Universitat Ulm vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Oriflame India Pvt. Ltd.vsDinender Jain & Others
In this interim order, the Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Oriflame against various defendants, including Amazon. The core dispute centered on whether Direct Selling Entities (DSEs) like Oriflame must obtain prior written consent before their products are sold on e-commerce platforms. While Amazon argued it was merely an intermediary exempt from liability under the IT Act, the Court issued specific interim directions. These orders mandate Amazon to identify sellers offering Oriflame's products and verify if they have obtained proper consent; listings without consent must be removed within strict timelines.
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.
Communication Components Antenna IncvsAce Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for infringement of their patent along with claims for injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts of profits.
Huawei Technologies Co., LtdvsThe Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802) by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding Form-3 filing delay. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds for rejection were untenable and remanding the matter.
Yoshida KenjivsThe Asst.Controller Of Patents
This writ petition challenged the deemed abandonment of a Japanese national's patent application. The core dispute revolved around whether the 12-month statutory period for responding to the examination report should be calculated from the date the report was issued or the date it was actually received by the petitioner. The court ruled that the time limit must be counted from the date of receipt, finding that the petitioner had submitted a valid response within the extended timeframe.
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.