Chemical — India Patent Cases
151 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 6 · 151 total
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.
Cabot Corporation v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Cabot Corporation successfully challenged the refusal of its word mark 'PROPEL' by The Registrar of Trade Marks. The High Court overturned the rejection based on two cited marks. For the first mark, the court noted that the proprietor had subsequently consented to registration despite differences in goods. For the second composite mark, the court clarified that protection only extends to the entire composite device and not its individual elements unless separately registered. This ruling paves the way for 'PROPEL' to proceed toward trademark registration.
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.
Essar Water Proofing Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v.R.Neelakanteswara Rao
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Essar Water Proofing Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. The petition sought the rectification of registered trademark No. 943699 in Class 1. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew the case on instructions from their counsel, leading to the dismissal of the petition without any order as to costs.
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.
Huhtamaki Oyj And Anr v.Controller Of Patents
Huhtamaki Oyj appealed a patent application rejection (Application No. 6727/DELNP/2014) based on lack of inventive step. The High Court examined the prior art references and found that the initial rejection was flawed, particularly regarding the procedural aspects. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Adama Makhteshim Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Adama Makhteshim Ltd appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 201617025525) by the Controller of Patents, which was based on lack of inventive step and clarity/sufficiency of disclosure. The Court found that procedural irregularities vitiated the impugned order because it failed to address all grounds of objection raised in the Hearing Notice.
Grupo Petrotemex S.A. De C.V. v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 965/DELNP/2006). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step, even though the initial objection raised by the Patent Office related only to novelty. The High Court found that the impugned order went beyond the scope of the original objection and allowed the appeal.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant sought a patent for 'Hygiene Wash,' a skin care preparation using wood vinegar derived from the Rhizophora apiculata tree. The Controller rejected the application, but the High Court found that the invention possessed an inventive step by identifying guaiacol-free wood vinegar and determining the optimal concentration (18-22%) to selectively target harmful bacteria while preserving beneficial lactic acid bacteria.
M/S Bharath Chemical Industries v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Bharath Chemical Industries seeking the rectification of a trademark register. The petitioner had sought to expunge the name of another party from the registration of the mark 'BCI-BHARATHA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES' (TM No. 2835990). However, during the preliminary hearing, the petitioner voluntarily submitted that the petition was withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn, while reserving all rights for the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies.
Cambridge Enterprises Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The appellant challenged an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs that refused Patent No. 2216/KOLNP/2009, claiming it was filed beyond the statutory time limit. The court examined the filing records and found that the application was correctly filed on June 5, 2009, within the stipulated deadline.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter And Gamble Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5444/DELNP/2007). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, citing prior art that showed individual ingredients. P&G argued that the cited art did not disclose the invention as a composition thereof.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the refusal of their Indian Patent Application No. 201911036748 by the Controller on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the invention was novel, inventive, and not subject to the bar of Section 3(d). However, the High Court upheld the Controller's refusal.
Element Six Technologies Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application (No. 10030/DELNP/2011) under Section 3(d). The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the application for fresh consideration of the remaining claims.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application for 'Hygiene Wash' by the Joint Controller. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on insufficiency of disclosure (Section 10(4)), was violative of natural justice as no objection was raised at earlier stages. The court directed re-notification to hear the matter further.
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd appealed a refusal order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The appellant argued that the refusal order, which cited prior art D4, was bereft of any reasoning to support the conclusion of lacking inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order invalid due to lack of justification and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Chemocentryx, Inc v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This case involves Chemocentryx, Inc challenging proceedings before the Controller General of Patents. The matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court's Commercial Appellate Division following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed that notices be issued to both parties and a report filed prior to the returnable date, setting the next hearing for March 6, 2023.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application titled "HYGIENE WASH". The rejection was based on insufficient disclosure under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed several interlocutory applications and listed the matter for further hearing.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Laziq Trading Company
The Plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, filed an interim application seeking relief against Laziq Trading Company for alleged infringement of its well-known trademarks and copyrights associated with the DR. FIXIT silicone sealant range. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling goods bearing similar marks or infringing the artistic work on the packaging.
Nippon A&L Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon A&L Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding its application for a copolymer latex process and product. The Patent Office had raised objections concerning inventive step, non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), and lack of clarity in claims. The High Court focused specifically on the objection related to claim amendments. The court ruled that since the Appellant was narrowing the scope of the claims and the process sought was disclosed in the specification, the amendments were valid under Section 59.
M/s.Proklean Technologies P. Ltd. v.M/s.Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'ProKlean' versus 'ProClean'. While acknowledging the applicant's registered marks, the court found that the balance of convenience tilted against granting an immediate injunction due to the respondent's significant turnover. Consequently, the applications were disposed of without granting the requested restraint, but the respondent was mandated to submit quarterly accounts of sales and profits related to the disputed mark.
Kawakami, Shigeki & Ors. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants filed an appeal challenging the order dated November 15, 2021, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The original application (No. 201817032492) was rejected on the ground of lack of novelty under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 5706/DELNP/2011) by the Asst. Controller of Patents. The primary issue addressed in this order was the condonation of a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was ultimately granted.
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.