Viacyte Inc v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Kemin Industries, Inc.vsThe Controller of Patents

Kemin Industries appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning the use of Ferulic Acid Esterase (FAE) combined with four main chain degrading enzymes in monogastric animals. The appellant argued that the specific combination provided synergistic effects and was not obvious from prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.

Bristol Myers Squibb CompanyvsDeputy Controller of Patents & Designs

Bristol Myers Squibb challenged communications from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Patent Application No. 5948/CHENP/2014, arguing that additional documents submitted by the opponent (Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance) should not be considered due to procedural non-compliance. The court ultimately declined to interfere with the decision to receive these documents but directed that the proceedings must conclude expeditiously within three months.

Epitech S.P.A.vsThe Controller Of Patents

Epitech S.P.A. appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents, which had denied the grant of its PCT national phase application (No. 6850/DELNP/2014). The Controller's initial decision was based on the finding that the data provided by the Appellant related to an irrelevant compound (PEA-OXA) instead of the claimed subject matter (PEA-OXLE). However, the Delhi High Court found this reasoning insufficient and factually incorrect, noting that the data did indeed include examples pertaining to PEA-OXLE. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Impugned Order and directing the Controller to decide the application afresh.

Hindustan Aeronautics LimitedvsCommissioner of Central Excise Bangalore - I

The appeal challenged the imposition of service tax under the 'Intellectual Property Right' category on payments made by HAL to BAE System for technical knowhow and assistance related to aircraft manufacturing. The Tribunal ruled that since the contract involved a temporary transfer of technology, it did not fall under the definition of IPR services chargeable to service tax.

Darius Rutton KavasmaneckvsGharda Chemicals Ltd.

This appeal involved a minority shareholder, Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck, challenging Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) and its Managing Director (Defendant No. 2). The core grievance was that Defendant No. 2 had obtained several patents in his individual name despite using the company's substantial research and development infrastructure and investment. The plaintiff argued these patents belonged to the company, asserting a fiduciary duty breach by the MD. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately rejected the prayer for interim relief, finding no compelling reason to grant protection based solely on apprehension.