Chemical — India Patent Cases
136 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 5 · 136 total
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT Madras) v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
IIT Madras appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a method for doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate to increase burn rates in solid propellants. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d) restrictions. The High Court upheld the rejection on grounds of Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja), finding the claimed technical advance obvious.
Honeywell International Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Honeywell International Inc appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Organic Fluorescent Compositions.' The core dispute centered on the validity of amendments made to the original claims, specifically changing the scope from a 'composition' to just the 'compound.' Honeywell argued that these amendments merely narrowed the scope and were fully supported by the original specification. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the application for fresh examination.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents for its patent application titled "Hair Dyeing Or Bleaching Method". The appeal was based on procedural infirmities, including the failure to raise objections under Section 3(a) in the hearing notice and the erroneous recording regarding industrial applicability. The Court found merit in these submissions and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prime Diamond Tech & Ors.
Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd challenged a trial court order that allowed its former employees, who formed Prime Diamond Tech, to continue their business activities despite allegations of copyright infringement. The appellant claimed that the respondents were using proprietary drawings and confidential information related to High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) machines for diamond coloring. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claim of a proprietary right is purely a question of fact requiring expert evidence during trial, and thus, no prima facie case warranted an injunction.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order that his patent application was deemed abandoned due to a four-day delay in responding to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to a clerical error. The High Court found the reasons acceptable, noting the minimal delay and the Controller's failure to properly address the Rule 137 application.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order that deemed his patent application abandoned due to a four-day delay in filing the response to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to clerical error, and that the Controller had sufficient power to condone such irregularities. The High Court found the reasons acceptable and condoned the delay.
L Oreal v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
L Oreal appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which rejected its patent application (No. 4652/DELNP/2013) for a process using thiopyridinone compounds. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider expert reports or properly analyze prior art under the Patents Act, 1970.
Martinswerk Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk Gmbh appealed the rejection of its product patent application for novel aluminum hydroxide flame retardants. The appeal argued that the Patent Controller repeatedly shifted and reverted between different limbs of Section 3(d) without providing a consistent or fair hearing process. The High Court found merit in these submissions.
Intelligent Energy Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Intelligent Energy Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3716/CHENP/2007) by the Controller General, which held that the invention lacked inventive step due to close resemblance to prior art D1. The appellant argued that their technique for capturing byproduct hydrogen represented a significant improvement over existing technology. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn. v.The Controller of Patents
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn appealed an order from the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on a propylene impact copolymer and method. The appellant argued that the rejection was flawed because the Controller failed to consider their written submissions and amendments made in response to prior art objections. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding procedural lapses, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Adama India Private Limited v.FMC Corporation & Anr.
This order addresses multiple suits filed in the Delhi High Court concerning patent infringement. Adama India Private Limited has sought a declaration that its CTPR manufacturing process does not infringe FMC Corporation's patent (IN 298645), while FMC Corporation seeks permanent injunction against Adama India for infringement.
Techpolymers Industria E Comercio Ltda v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application by the Controller, which cited lack of inventive step and objected to an amendment under Section 59. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider the explanations regarding prior art and misinterpreted the substance of the amended claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and remanded for fresh consideration.
Novozymes A/S v.The Controller of Patents
Novozymes A/S appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on 'Enzyme Dehairing of Skins and Hides'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and being contrary to public order (harm to animals).
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Fluorinated Polymer and Surface Treating Agent Composition' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the controller had cherry-picked claims and failed to address the final amendments, leading to an avoidable litigation. The High Court allowed the appeal.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order dated 11.11.2016 concerning Patent Application No. 6334/CHENP/2009, which related to polyamide materials with high fluid barrier properties. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and was obvious in view of prior art documents D5 and D6.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order regarding its patent application for a polyamide material with high fluid barrier properties. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art D5 and D6. The court examined the teachings of both prior arts and concluded that combining them would lead to an obvious invention.
SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.
SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. IN331314, titled 'PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF HALOGENATED CARBOXYLIC ANHYDRIDES', which was granted to Respondent no. 1. The petitioner claims that the patent ought not have been allowed due to various prior art and prior use evidence.
Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents, which rejected a second divisional application (grandchild application) because its claims were deemed to conflict with those in the original grandparent application. The appellant argued that filing the divisional application was necessitated by objections raised by the Controller. The High Court held that since the filing was a consequence of an objection, the division should be assessed on its own merits.
Sri Amaresh Banerjee v.The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The petitioner, a manufacturer of coaltar under the trade name 'Anchor', challenged the rejection of his application for reinvestigation before the Calcutta High Court. The dispute involved alleged infringement of the petitioner's registered trademark and copyright by the opposite party no. 1. The court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, finding that the investigation was conducted fairly and that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process since a civil suit on the same matter was already pending.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application sought to determine the method of inquiry regarding whether certain moulds/dyes were infringing material, considering the original patent had expired. The court considered the request for an independent scientific adviser under Section 115 but proceeded by allowing the parties to file their respective expert affidavits.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application concerns whether certain moulds/dyes are infringing material, despite the original patent having expired. The court considered the need for expert determination on this factual question.
Martinswerk GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748011754) by The Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the application qualified as a divisional application containing separate inventive concepts, while the respondent maintained it did not meet Section 16 requirements. The High Court set aside the impugned order due to lack of reasoning and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble challenged the Controller's order refusing its 'Detergent Compositions' patent application due to lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, citing a four-year delay in processing and the Patent Office failing to grant adequate time for responding to objections raised under Section 8(2) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court agreed with the appellant, finding the process contrary to natural justice and statutory timelines.
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated December 16, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 1845/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and objections under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble Company appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'A DETERGENT COMPOSITION COMPRISING LIPASE VARIANT'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art. P&G argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles due to procedural delays.
DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application for 'Ethylene-based polymers' on the ground of lack of inventive step, citing prior art documents D4 and D5. The court set aside the impugned order, holding that the arguments regarding non-obviousness were not properly engaged by the respondent. Consequently, the matter was remanded to allow reconsideration while taking into account the passage of time and foreign patent grants.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its divisional application (No. 201918017795) concerning a bifunctional co-polymer composition. The refusal was based on outstanding objections regarding lack of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act, 1970.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision to reject a patent application concerning 'BIO-BASED POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE POLYMER AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME'. The appellant argues that all grounds for patentability were satisfied, despite the rejection based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The court allowed applications for exemption from filing documents and condoned delay in filing the appeal.
M/s.Kpr Fertilizers Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
M/s.Kpr Fertilizers Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. IN 202028, which covered a process for manufacturing Food Grade Dicalcium Phosphate. The court dismissed the petition after noting that the patent's term had expired in February 2023.
Kiri Industries Limited v.Huntsman Advanced Material (Switzerland) GMBH, The Controller of Patents, The Controller of Patents & Design
Kiri Industries Limited filed an Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 216182, granted to Huntsman Advanced Material for 'AN AZO DYE'. The petitioner subsequently informed the court that it was withdrawing the rectification petition.
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.