Agriculture — India Patent Cases
213 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 8 · 213 total
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
M/S Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Veda Seed Sciences against an interim trademark infringement order. The court affirmed that Kohinoor Seed Fields was the prior adopter and registrant of the marks 'SADANAND', 'TADAAKHA', and 'BASANT'. Despite Veda's later registration, the court found their use was dishonest, stemming from a marketing agreement where they acknowledged ownership by Kohinoor. The injunction restraining Veda from using these trademarks remains in effect.
Hadiklaim Central Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. v.Ms Dharamraj And Sons And Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court judgment confirms the resolution of a trademark dispute concerning the 'KING SOLOMON DATES' brand. The plaintiff successfully reached comprehensive settlement agreements with multiple defendants, including Defendant No. 1. These settlements legally bind the defendants to cease all use of similar or deceptively related marks and acknowledge the plaintiff's exclusive ownership rights over the trademark.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation appealed an order that rejected its application for a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited. FMC alleged that Natco's process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) infringed their patented method IN 298645, claiming equivalence between the processes. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infringement because the use of thionyl chloride by Natco was not equivalent to sulfonyl chloride in the suit patent.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.GSP Crop Science Private Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit seeking an injunction against GSP Crop Science Private Limited for allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. IN 252004, which covers a method for preparing intermediates used in manufacturing the insecticide CTPR. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant's process was identical to the patented method. However, the Court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the balance of convenience favored the Defendant and raising doubts about the patent's industrial applicability due to its age.
FMC Corporation v.Insecticides India Limited
The Plaintiffs filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Insecticides India Limited, alleging that the Defendant was infringing their patent (IN'645) by using a patented method for preparing the insecticide CTPR. The court examined whether the Defendant's process was equivalent to the claimed invention.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction protecting the petitioner's intellectual property rights related to fertiliser sprayers. The court found that the respondents were using a virtually identical packaging and trade dress, including the word 'Bharat Shakti,' which amounted to deceiving the public. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from making such imitations, and a Receiver was appointed to inventory the infringing products.
FMC Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
FMC Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'HERBICIDAL MIXTURES' based on procedural grounds, primarily the failure to file timely written submissions. The High Court noted that while the applicant was responsible for delays, the original order lacked proper reasoning and considered the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in terms of remanding the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Safex Chemical India Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Safex Chemical India Ltd. challenged the Controller's decision to grant a patent for a 'Novel Agricultural Composition,' arguing that the Petitioner was denied natural justice because they were not informed about the allowance of Respondent No. 2's amendments before the pre-grant opposition hearing. The petitioner contended this procedural lapse rendered the granted patent invalid. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately disposed of the Writ Petition, noting that the petitioner had already availed and was actively pursuing the alternate remedy under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act.
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking enforcement of its patent (IN 271338) covering a crystalline complex used in agriculture, which is commercially sold under the mark 'XELORA'. The dispute arose because the Defendant obtained registration for a similar combination product. After considering the parties' submissions and undertakings, the court decreed the suit based on the defendant's commitment not to launch the infringing product until the patent expires or is invalidated.
Dow Agrosciences Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Dow Agrosciences Llc filed an appeal challenging the rejection order dated September 9, 2020, concerning its patent application for 'ENDPOINT TAQMAN METHODS FOR DETERMINING ZYGOSITY OF COTTON'. The case was listed before the Delhi High Court after being transferred from the IPAB due to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd.
The court heard several applications filed by Gsp Crop Science Private Limited, including an application seeking interim injunction and discovery. The Petitioner sought protection against the Respondents interfering with its business related to the process claimed in patent IN 252004.
Fmc Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit sought a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing FMC Corporation's patent IN'645, which covers a method for preparing the insecticide CTPR. The court examined the processes used by both parties and relied on scientific advisor reports. Ultimately, the court found that the competing processes were distinct and not 'equivalent', allowing Natco to launch CTPR.
Fmc Corporation v.Best Crop Science Llp
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Best Crop Science LLP for allegedly using the patented process IN '645 to manufacture Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) under the brand name CITIGEN. Defendants contested the suit, raising issues of patent invalidity due to non-working and allegations of evergreening by plaintiffs. The Court ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner and Scientific Advisors to independently analyze the product and map the defendants' process against the suit patent.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner challenged an impugned order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, which granted a patent for 'Novel Fungicidal Composition'. The petitioner argued that the respondent made amendments to their claims without providing them an opportunity to be heard. However, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had already availed of alternative remedies.
Vikram A Sreerama v.U. Galeppa Reddy
The plaintiff filed an arbitration suit challenging an arbitral award related to a partnership firm that developed 'Amvicube PA 2.0', a machine for detecting broken rice grains. The plaintiff alleged misappropriation of IP rights and assets by the defendant, but the court upheld the original arbitral award.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its divisional patent application (No. 201918027661). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step and insufficient experimental data. The Court directed the parties to submit the full file wrapper of both the parent and subject applications for further consideration.
Best Agrolife Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's decision granting Patent No. IN 394568, arguing that the grant was flawed because the pre-grant opposition raised on grounds like lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(d) was ignored. The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking, failed to address key objections, and did not consider expert affidavits. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Aasik Jindran v.Mohammad Rafiq
Aasik Jindran, proprietor of M/s GBL Agro Equipments, filed a petition challenging an earlier commercial court order. The dispute centered on the use of the brand name 'GBL' for agricultural goods by Mohammad Rafiq, which Jindran claimed infringed his registered trademarks and copyrights. While the trial court had granted injunction against 'GBL', Jindran sought an extension to include restraint against the similar mark 'SGBL'.
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking protection of its patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes containing thiophanate-methyl and pyraclostrobin used as a fungicide. The court addressed several procedural applications before granting an interim order regarding the injunction request.
BASF SE v.SEEDLINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
BASF SE filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Seedlings India Private Limited and others for infringing its Patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes used in fungicides/insecticides. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants' products were approved under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, despite previous undertakings by related group companies not to infringe the patent.
New Bharat Overseas v.Kian Agro Processing Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'TAJ MAHAL' used for rice. While the plaintiff holds Indian registration, the court noted that a Saudi Arabian entity also possesses similar trademark rights in its country of origin. The court allowed both parties time to file detailed written statements and granted an undertaking from the defendant not to sell or distribute the product outside India and Saudi Arabia. Crucially, the court directed the plaintiff to array the foreign entity as a party, indicating that the matter requires further examination regarding international trademark rights.
Valent Biosciences Llc v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Valent Biosciences Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201717025151). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step under relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed applications for additional documents and exempted filing fees, and listed the appeal for further hearing.
UPL Limited v.Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute involved UPL Limited asserting its patent rights over the composition Clodinafop-Propargyl (15%) + Metsulfuron Methyl (1%) WP against Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. The matter was amicably settled before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was using a process patented under IN 206995. The Defendant defended by claiming invalidity based on prior art (EP 1031566). This order addressed procedural applications, allowing the Defendant time to file the official translated copy of the cited prior art.
Seedsmen Association v.Government Of Andhra Pradesh
The appeal challenged an order passed in a Writ Petition concerning a Government Order that fixed the reasonable trait value/royalty for cotton seeds. The court considered arguments regarding the prejudice to the petitioners if the order was suspended, particularly its effect on pending arbitral disputes.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited v.Rallis India Ltdl.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited challenged an Arbitral Award dated 30.3.2009 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute centered on a contract for developing transgenic cotton lines ('Suraksha') and the failure to deliver specific genes (Cry-IC standalone). Nuziveedu Seeds sought to set aside parts of the award regarding damages and deliverables.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction protecting the petitioner's intellectual property rights related to fertiliser sprayers. The court found that the respondents were using a virtually identical packaging and trade dress, including the word 'Bharat Shakti,' which amounted to deceiving the public. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from making such imitations, and a Receiver was appointed to inventory the infringing products.
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.