Chemical — India Patent Cases
178 decisions indexed
Page 6 of 6 · 178 total
Rolic Ag Et Al v.The Controller General Of Patents And ...
The appeal challenged the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent for 'Topologically Structured Polymer Coating.' The appellants argued that the invention was novel and inventive, citing acceptance by the European Patent Office (EPO). The IPAB found that the Controller's refusal order lacked clarity and explicit reasons, leading to the remand of the case.
Lucky Chemical Industry & 3 v.Rajnikant Devidas Shroff & 2
Lucky Chemical Industry & 3 appealed a judgment passed by the Additional District Judge in Special Civil Suit No.1 of 2003. The original suit was filed by Rajnikant Devidas Shroff and United Phosphorus Limited, claiming infringement of Patent No. 172459 related to Phosphorus Pentachloride production. The trial court had partly allowed the suit, granting a perpetual injunction.
Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research v.Goodman Drug House (P.) Ltd.
The dispute arose from an agreement between C.S.I.R./I.I.P. and Goodman Drug House for converting Menthone to Menthol using proprietary technology. When the project failed to yield results, Goodman sought damages through arbitration. The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal against the arbitral award.
National Research And Development v.Chrome International
This case involved an appeal challenging an arbitration award concerning non-payment of royalties by Chrome International to National Research And Development Corporation. The core dispute centered on whether the claim for unpaid royalty was time-barred, given that payments were due twice yearly.
Bilcare Limited v.M/S.The Supreme Industries Limited
The suit was filed by Bilcare Limited seeking a permanent injunction against M/S. The Supreme Industries Limited for infringing registered patent number 197823, which covered 'metallized' film used in pharmaceutical packaging. The court examined the technical evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement.
Golden Star Paints And Chemicals Private Limited v.Eastern Chemicals & J&R Associates
The Kerala High Court addressed an appeal concerning allegations of passing off involving red and black oxide products. The court found that the appellants' product names, despite minor differences like adding 'New,' were deceptively similar to the respondent's well-known brand, GOLDSTAR'S EAGLE. Consequently, the finding of passing off was upheld, confirming the perpetual injunction against the second appellant. However, the court partially allowed the appeal by setting aside a specific decree related to artistic work under the Copyright Act, noting that the suit was fundamentally one of passing off.
Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Central Excise
The appellant, IFFCO, challenged the demand for service tax on payments made to HALDOR TOPSOE of Denmark. The dispute centered on whether the payment was for taxable consulting engineer services or merely for the licensing of 'know-how' and technical information. The Tribunal held that since the agreement was composite, the consideration must be bifurcated, with only the portion related to technical assistance being subject to service tax.
Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited v.United Phosphorus Limited And Anr.
The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking revocation and interim suspension of Patent No. 185229. The respondent argued that since a related suit was already pending before the District Court, Indore, and a restraint order had been obtained there, conflicting orders could not be passed. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim suspension.
Veegee Products v.Sou. Nayan Bharat Davda
The Bombay High Court quashed an interlocutory injunction granted by the lower court, allowing Veegee Products (the appellant) to continue manufacturing and marketing its disinfectant powder under the trademark 'Carbo-dust'. The court found that a prima facie comparison of the marks, logos, color schemes, and packaging did not suggest a deceptive similarity. Furthermore, it noted that the primary purchasers were local governmental authorities who follow formal procurement processes, making consumer confusion unlikely at this stage.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.S.M. Associates And Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Pidilite Industries Ltd., granting an injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'M-Seal' and copyright. Despite the defense arguing that the assignment deed excluded the rights related to the stylized mark, the court found that the defendant was fully aware of the plaintiff's established rights. The judgment confirms the initial ad-interim order, restricting the infringement injunction to specific parts of the packaging.
National Research Development Corporation of India v.Shri O.P. Kathpalia
The appellant (National Research Development Corporation) sought to refer a dispute concerning technical know-how transfer and royalty payments related to hard ferrites under an agreement dated 8th August, 1967. The respondent contested the liability for royalties and failure to file returns. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the petition was hopelessly time barred due to the parties' conduct and the expiration of the original agreement.
Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company v.The Rajasthan Navsagar Manufacturers & Others
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company, quashing a previous decision that had allowed the registration of 'Steamer Brand'. The court emphasized that the respondents could not claim honest concurrent use when they were aware of the petitioner's long-standing opposition and reputation. This judgment reinforces the principle that prior established goodwill and genuine objection outweigh subsequent claims of good faith usage.
Structural Waterproofing & Ors. v.Mr. Amit Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court vacated an ex-parte injunction restraining defendants from using the trademark CICO. The court found that since both parties had acted upon a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which governed the use of the brand, the plaintiff could not seek injunctive relief based on mere challenge to the MOU's validity or non-registration of assignment. Furthermore, the pendency of a related suit under Section 10 CPC barred the grant of interim injunction.
Standipack Private Limited v.M/S. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling pouches that allegedly infringed upon the plaintiff's patented design. The defendants contended that the patent was illegally granted, subject to ongoing revocation proceedings, and that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts. The court ultimately found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the injunction.
Sandhya Organic Chemicals P. Ltd. v.United Phosphorous Ltd.
The plaintiff, a chemical manufacturer, claimed exclusive rights over a newly invented process for making Aluminium Phosphide (AIP) and Zinc Phosphide (ZnP). The suit alleged that the defendants infringed this process and caused wrongful loss. The appeals challenged the trial court's grant of an interim injunction.
Hindusthan Lever Limited v.Godrej Soaps Limited And Others
Hindusthan Lever Limited filed an application for temporary injunction alleging that Godrej Soaps Limited and others were infringing its Patent No. 170171 by manufacturing and selling toilet soap under the brand 'VIGIL' with a composition covered by the patent. The court examined the compositional similarities between the patented invention and the impugned product.
The Industrial Gases Ltd. v.Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd.
The Industrial Gases Ltd. appealed an order refusing them an interim injunction concerning Patent No. 169335. The court examined the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, noting that the Trial Judge had exercised discretion in denying the relief. Ultimately, the appellate court found no perversity in the Trial Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v.Maschmeijer Aromatics (India) Pvt.
This case addressed whether a payment made by an assessee company for technical know-how and exclusive licenses to patents, trademarks, and designs from a foreign collaborator should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. The assessee had paid Rs. 2,00,000 in shares/kind consideration for these rights. The Income Tax Department argued it was revenue expenditure, but the court ruled that since the payment acquired valuable IP assets (patents, trademarks) and technical know-how, it constituted a capital asset.
Thomson Brandt v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Thomson Brandt appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 342/Del/SO) for a process involving pacifying a gaseous medium using a boron pacifying aerosol. The appellant argued that the Controller misdirected himself by failing to consider Section 5 of the Patents Act, 1970, and incorrectly assumed that only processes resulting in tangible products could be patented.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft Of ... v.Controller Of Patents, Government Of ...
The petitioner applied to rectify Patent No. 139978, arguing that the compound Chlorothio-N-Phthalimide should be granted a 14-year patent term instead of the 7 years fixed by the Controller. The respondent argued that the compound is a drug and that the application was barred by limitation.
National Research Development Corporation of India v.The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff, National Research Development Corporation of India, sought a temporary injunction against the defendants for infringing its Patent No. 138571 concerning TSIA. The defendants challenged the patent's validity and denied infringement. The court found that the plaintiff was the rightful assignee and that the defendants were aware of the patent and had negotiated for a license, thus confirming the injunction.
Aluminium Company Of America v.Joint Controller Of Patents & Designs
The appellant filed an application for a patent relating to solid lobular Aluminium Chloride produced via desublimation. The Controller objected that the invention was not patentable under Section 5(b) because it involved a chemical process. The Calcutta High Court upheld this objection, ruling that since the substance is obtained through a larger chemical manufacturing process (chlorination of alumina), the final physical step of desublimation cannot be considered separately for patentability.
Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v.Sarabhai M. Chemicals P. Ltd.
The Commission initiated an inquiry into a 'sale of know-how' agreement between Sarabhai M. Chemicals P. Ltd. and E. Merck A.G., which was brought to its notice by Jayant Vitamins Ltd. The core dispute centered on Clause 9 of a subsequent agreement, which restricted the second respondent (E.M.) from manufacturing or selling certain 'LISTED ITEMS' in India.
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs ...
The appeal challenged an order passed by the Controller General regarding the settlement of terms for an interim license allowing manufacture of a patented catalyst. The patent covered a specific composition and process for steam reforming catalysts. The Calcutta High Court ultimately declined to interfere with the Controller's order, noting that the patent was nearing expiry.
Farbenfebriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The patentee, Farbenfebriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, appealed against the Controller's decision to grant compulsory licenses for two patents (Nos. 43678 and 43679) to Arlabs Private Limited. The petitioner sought a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution to appeal further to the Supreme Court.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala v.Chimanlal Chunilal And Co.
The plaintiff, holding a patent for an improved process of treating dried fruits, sued the defendants alleging infringement. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendants' process substantially matched the patented combination, particularly concerning the use of pressure.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah
The case involved an appeal regarding a patent application for a process to whiten almond shells. The court examined whether the combination of bleaching powder and sulphur dioxide under pressure constituted an invention, and if the plaintiff was the true inventor. The court ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah
The appeal concerned a patent action regarding a novel chemical process for whitening almonds. The High Court examined whether the process constituted an invention, if the plaintiff was the original inventor, and addressed prior use defenses raised by the defendant's associates. The court ultimately allowed the appeal in favor of the plaintiff.
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.