Chemical — India Patent Cases
151 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 6 · 151 total
UPL Mauritius Limited & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
UPL Mauritius Limited and another have filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 15.05.2026 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 202211035759. The court allowed the exemption application and issued notice to the respondent, returnable on 03.12.2026. The matter is at the initial stage of hearing.
Natco Pharma Limited v.FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd and Ors
Natco Pharma Limited filed a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 298645 to the extent of claim 12 against FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd and others. The matter was received on transfer from another court. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition as the inter se disputes between the parties had been amicably settled pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 31.03.2026. The petition along with pending applications was disposed of as withdrawn.
Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Sulphur Mills Limited & Anr
Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 298645 against Sulphur Mills Limited & Anr. The respondent's counsel pointed out technical errors in the petition, including the name of Respondent No. 1. Confronted with these errors, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. The Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty in accordance with law.
Nature Coatings Inc v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
Nature Coatings Inc filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 refusing grant of patent under Application No. 202227024750. The Court allowed the appellant's application for exemption and granted three weeks' time to place on record the apostilled copy of the Power of Attorney. Notice was issued to the respondent, who accepted notice through counsel, with directions to file reply within six weeks and rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.
SRF Limited v.Arkema Inc & Anr.
SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 296159 from the Register of Patents under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications, including those seeking exemption from filing certain certificates and affidavits, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, who appeared on advance copy and accepted notice, with directions to file replies within six weeks.
Shaafi Naturcure Llp v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an objection raised by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court noted that the appellant had entered into an agreement with the National Biodiversity Authority, which could address the Section 3(p) objection. To clarify the matter, the Court directed the respondent to provide a detailed response regarding both the biodiversity agreement and a specific chart demonstrating inventive step.
Uflex Limited v.The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr.
The petitioner, Uflex Limited, filed an application seeking permission to amend its revocation petition concerning Patent No. IN 396443, which relates to the recycling of multilayer plastics used in packaging. The court allowed the amendment and also granted permission for the petitioner to file confidential customer details in a sealed cover.
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc appealed regarding the possibility of amending its patent claims. The appellant sought permission to limit the claimed compounds to 52, arguing this would not contravene Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued against the amendment based on previous judicial precedents.
M/s.Green Energy Resources v.Union of India and others
M/s.Green Energy Resources filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of Patent No.343974, which had lapsed because renewal fees were not deposited by the Petitioner's authorized agent. The court considered arguments regarding agent negligence and the extension of limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
M/s.Green Energy Resources v.Union of India and others
M/s.Green Energy Resources filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of Patent No.343974, which had lapsed because the renewal fees were not deposited by the Petitioner's authorized agent. The court considered arguments regarding agent negligence and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period.
OCV Intellectual Capital Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application for a high-performance glass fiber composition that achieves S-glass properties at a lower manufacturing cost. The Controller rejected it based on lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentable subject matter. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to consider key arguments regarding technical advancement and synergistic effect.
M/s.Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Intellectual Property Office
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's rejection of its post-grant opposition against Patent No. 311984, which covered an anti-stick coating. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order because it failed to provide reasons for rejecting material grounds of opposition. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by a different officer.
Synertec Pty Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
Synertec Pty Ltd filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its patent application (No. 202217030233) which had been deemed withdrawn under Section 11B(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner argued that the failure to file the request for examination was due to an inadvertent error by its Patent Agent regarding the deadline. The Court allowed the petition, finding that the Petitioner acted diligently and should not suffer consequences of the agent's mistake.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Tapas Chatterjee appealed a decision where the Assistant Controller rejected his patent application for 'Recovery of Potassium Sulphate...'. The rejection was based on pre-grant opposition filed by CSIR, citing lack of inventive step (Section 25(1)(e)). The High Court remanded the matter back to the CGPDTM for fresh consideration, restricting it only to the objection raised by CSIR regarding inventive step.
Natural Medicine Institute Of Zhejiang v.The Deputy Controller of Patents And The Controller of Patents
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 6275/CHENP/2011) for 'A MORDANT AND HAIR COLORING PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME'. The rejection was based on procedural grounds regarding claim amendments, but the court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.
The court passed several orders on various interlocutory applications related to the main patent dispute. Directions were given regarding the filing of additional documents, permission was granted for amending claims under Sections 58 and 59 of the Patents Act, and an application seeking amendment in a Revocation Petition was disposed of while reserving rights.
Treibacher Industrie Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Treibacher Industrie Ag appealed a rejection of its patent application concerning 'USE OF VANADATES AS OXIDATION CATALYSTS'. The Controller had refused the grant, citing lack of inventive step and issues with amended claims. However, the Delhi High Court set aside the Impugned Order, holding that it failed to adhere to principles of natural justice because it lacked a proper reasoned decision (speaking order). Furthermore, the court found that the Controller neglected to consider the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant.
Albemarle Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Albemarle Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 2897/DELNP/2012) by the Controller of Patents, which cited lack of novelty and inventive step. During the appeal, the appellant sought to file an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to a process aspect for cleaning polyurethane foam. The Court allowed this amendment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for 'HIGH PERFORMANCE ZIEFLERNATTA CATALYST SYSTEMS.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed process involved an inventive step, specifically regarding the use of diether compounds as internal donors in catalyst production. The High Court ultimately upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was obvious in view of existing prior art documents.
Sharvan Kumar Mittal Trading As Girish Chemical Industries v.Janhvi Sharma Trading As Janhvi Chemical Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation and stay of Trademark No. 3017399, a device mark registered in Class 2. The court allowed the petitioner to proceed by directing notice to all respondents and setting key dates for filing replies and written synopses. Furthermore, the court granted an application to summon the complete registration record pertaining to related trademarks, ensuring transparency in the dispute.
Nocil Ltd v.Finorchem Ltd And Anr
The defendants filed an application seeking revocation of the dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The dispute involves allegations of patent infringement and breach of confidentiality concerning the manufacturing process of 4-ADPA. The court ruled that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded urgency based on a holistic reading of the plaint.
Pc Laminations v.Sk Microworks Co Ltd & Ors.
The petitioner, Pc Laminations, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN437049. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters like exemption from certified copies and permission to file additional documents.
Annikki Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Annikki Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process for producing xylitol from lignocellulosic material. The rejection was based on alleged lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(d) due to prior art citations (D1-D5). The High Court found errors in the respondent's reasoning, particularly regarding the non-fermentative nature of the claimed process versus the cited prior art.
Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Navanath Ambre
Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. filed appeals challenging the trial court's refusal to grant various ex-parte reliefs, including an interim injunction, appointment of a receiver, and disclosure of sensitive information from former employees (the respondents). The plaintiff alleged that these defendants had divulged confidential company data, client lists, and manufacturing processes after resigning. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed all appeals, holding that the trial court committed no procedural or jurisdictional error in denying these urgent ex-parte orders.
Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.) v.Glorious Investment Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged an order by The Controller General of Patents and Designs, which had refused its patent application. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patent Act, citing concerns over public order or morality due to the nature of tobacco products. The appellant argued that the process—a method for preparing a sugar-containing syrup from Nicotiana species stalk (tobacco flavourant)—should not be rejected simply because all forms of tobacco are injurious. The court directed the Controller to take necessary instructions before further proceedings.
Milliken And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Milliken And Company appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant an Indian patent application. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider a crucial expert statement by Dr. Nathan A Mehl. The High Court found merit in the appeal, holding that foreign decisions are not binding and directing the matter back for fresh consideration.
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas appealed an order rejecting Patent Application No. 201941042481 for a method to capture carbon dioxide. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting that new grounds were raised by the respondent, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG v.Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG against the refusal of its trademark registration for 'REPELLAN'. The court found that the Assistant Registrar's original order was cryptic, non-speaking, and violated principles of natural justice because it failed to consider the appellant's detailed arguments regarding the difference in goods (textile vs. construction) between 'REPELLAN' and the cited mark 'REPELLIN'. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the Registrar was directed to publish the trademark for public opposition.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
Gautam Bhatia filed an application seeking permission to amend the claims of his Indian Patent No.410993, which relates to a method for preparing an adhesive. The plaintiff sought to narrow the scope of the process and product claims by defining the ratio of modified starch to various powders within a specific range (1:1 to 1:5). Despite the defendant opposing the amendment, the court allowed it, finding that the proposed changes were clarificatory, narrowing the scope, and supported by the original complete specification.
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.