Viacyte Inc v. Controller Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark and Anr.

IPDPTA/44/2023 (Sr/3/2019/Pt2011)

The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Calcutta High Court
Case Number
IPDPTA/44/2023 (Sr/3/2019/Pt2011)
Judge(s)
Ravi Krishan Kapur

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Calcutta High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Viacyte Inc vs Controller Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark and Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent2025 INSC 1256

Novenco Building And Industry A/SvsXero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.

The appellant (Novenco) filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents and designs by the respondent (Xero Energy). The High Court rejected the plaint due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, citing a delay between discovery and filing. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that continuous infringement and public interest in preventing market confusion establish urgency, regardless of the time lag.

patentCS(COMM) 808/2025

Frimline Private LimitedvsK-Smatco Lifesciences Private Limited

The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants are infringing upon their patented pharmaceutical composition, IN 382949, and also copying content from the Plaintiffs' website. The Suit Patent covers a synergistic combination of Lactoferrin and Guanosine Nucleotide for treating anaemia. Based on the prima facie evidence presented, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from marketing or selling the infringing product 'FERROTOK PLUS', while also allowing interim protection for the Plaintiffs' copyright.

patentCS(COMM) 428/2024

Mr Lakshit Goyal Proprietor Of Rama Domestic AppliancesvsSunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances

The Delhi High Court initiated trademark infringement proceedings between Mr Lakshit Goyal's Rama Domestic Appliances and Sunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks ('HPC APPLIANCES'). While several procedural applications were disposed of, the core suit was registered, and notice was issued to the defendant, setting the stage for detailed arguments on trademark similarity and infringement.

patentC.S.No.474 of 2017

M.Kumaaravel / M/s.Vel Chakra Coffee Private LimitedvsAshok Nagar Madras Coffee House

In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Madras High Court, M.Kumaaravel sought permanent injunction and damages against Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House for passing off their establishment as similar to 'Madras Coffee House.' However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiffs formally moved to withdraw the suit. The court accepted this request, leading to the dismissal of the civil suit.

patentCS(COMM) 1370/2025

Banayan Tree Services Ltd & Anr.vsJohn Doe & Anr. (including WhatsApp LLC)

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and impersonation. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file additional evidence, exempted them from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought, and directed WhatsApp (Defendant No. 2) to provide Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) for implicated mobile numbers. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the cyber fraud aspect of the case, directing steps be taken by the Cyber Police Station regarding the filed Crime Incident Report.

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