Vakzine Projekt Management Gmbh v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 450/2022

Vakzine Projekt Management Gmbh appealed against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its patent application. The rejection was based on the grounds that the composition fell within the scope of Section 3(d) and Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 450/2022
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

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 Vakzine Projekt Management Gmbh vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 220/2020

USV Private LimitedvsPaksons Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of USV Private Limited against Paksons Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark for 'Multi Vitamin Infusion' could mislead consumers into believing the product originated from the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the infringing trademark until further hearing.

patentOSA No.5 of 2024 (2024:HHC:7049)

Ulink Agritech Private Ltd.vsSml Limited & Others

The appellant challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Single Judge, which restrained them from infringing Patent No. 282092 (covering 'SELZIC'). The core legal issue was whether the Single Judge's order contained adequate reasons as mandated by proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court found that the conclusion of a prima facie case was not preceded by any proper reasoning, leading to the setting aside and remittance of the injunction.

patentCS(COMM) 397/2016

Jagran Prakashan LtdvsJagran Production Ltd & Anr

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple connected suits involving Jagran Prakashan Ltd against various related entities concerning the use of the 'JAGRAN' trademark. The court noted significant changes, including a company name change and another entity being under liquidation. Given the lack of compliance with previous orders regarding business operations, the court granted an extended deadline for defendants to file affidavits detailing their current business activities. Furthermore, the parties were directed to explore mediation as a potential resolution pathway.

patentCMA(PT)/2/2023

Bristol Myers Squibb CompanyvsDeputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office

Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application for a new hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the compound demonstrated enhanced bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy compared to the free base form. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.

patentW.P.(C)-IPD 16/2023, CM 36/2023 & CM 37/2023

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co KgvsThe Controller Of Patents & Anr.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma challenged the rejection of its application seeking to quash a pre-grant opposition filed against its patent application. The petitioner argued that the opposition lacked reasonable justification, while the court addressed the issue of abuse of process under Section 25(1).

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