Short Summary
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The High Court found the original order cryptic, noting that it failed to discuss prior arts or address specific submissions made by the appellant regarding synergistic effects and foreign patents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny.
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 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
Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd.vsMr.Tallam Uma Shankar Gupta
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'GYPLOCK' (No. 3536418). The petitioner, Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd., successfully argued that its established trademark 'GYPROC' was similar to the impugned mark and used on identical goods—building materials. Despite arguments regarding common trade terms ('GYP'), the court found the overall similarity between 'GYPROC' and 'GYPLOCK' likely to cause confusion, thereby protecting the purity of the register.
Pinnacle Engines IncvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Pinnacle Engines Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8612/CHENP/2012) for an opposed piston engine with non-collinear axes of translation, arguing that it provided a technical advance over conventional collinear engines. The court found potential prior art relevant to the inventive features and remanded the application for reconsideration.
M/s.Star PlasticsvsChandrasekhar
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Star Plastics' petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register against Chandrasekhar's 'STARPRO' mark. The court found that despite the addition of the suffix 'pro', the similarity between the petitioner's registered word mark 'Star' and the respondent's 'STARPRO' was striking enough to deceive an ordinary consumer. Given both marks were in Class 17, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the infringing registration.
Aarogyaai Innovations Private LimitedvsAshok Kumar
The plaintiff, AarogyaAI Innovations Private Limited, holds registered trademarks for 'AarogyaAI', a software that uses AI to analyze genomic data for diagnosing drug-resistant tuberculosis. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 fraudulently purchased similar domain names (aarogyaai.com and aarogyaai.in), causing potential misrepresentation and trade mark infringement. The court found the defendants liable and decreed the suit.
V.K.R.VenkatesanvsV. Mahendran
This case involved a dispute over trademark and copyright infringement concerning 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' used on rice products. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and artistic works. However, despite multiple opportunities and court directions to file necessary affidavits and proceed with evidence, the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with the case management schedule. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the suit for default.
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.