Electronics — India Patent Cases
129 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 5 · 129 total
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd
The dispute concerned the validity and potential revocation of Patent No. IN240893. Although the court had previously found the patent invalid under Section 64(1)(h) in an earlier judgment, the matter was carried out in appeal. The core issue before this bench was whether the patent could be revoked based on grounds like insufficient disclosure (Section 64(1)(h)).
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
The case involved patent infringement concerning Vivo mobile phones. A specific application was filed by defendant No. 3 (Xihi Technology Private Limited) seeking deletion from the parties array, claiming they only manufacture mobile chargers. The court accepted the undertaking given by D-3 not to infringe and passed an interim injunction against them.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenges a single judge's decision that invalidated the Appellant's patent (IN240893). The Appellant argues that the ground of Section 64(1)(h) was not pleaded or evidenced, while the Respondent seeks to uphold the revocation based on various sections of the Patents Act.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
The petitioner (Nokia Technologies Oy) filed an application seeking temporary injunction and disclosure of assets against the respondent (Guangdong Oppo Mobile). The court, while addressing various interlocutory applications, granted a direction for the defendants to furnish specific disclosures regarding their sales and revenues related to the alleged infringing devices.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr.
This order addressed a review petition filed by Defendant No. 2 (Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd.) challenging the denial of framing issues regarding its application for patent revocation. The court noted that the pending revocation proceedings before IPAB were effectively being handled by the High Court's jurisdiction post-IPAB abolition. To resolve this, the court permitted the defendant to withdraw the IPAB revocation petition and file a counterclaim in the suit.
Larsen & Toubro Limited v.Radheshyam Singh
The plaintiffs (Larsen & Toubro Limited and General Industrial Controls Private Limited) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were infringing their trademarks (including Larsen & Toubro, L&T, LT, etc., and GIC/GIC) and violating copyrights related to their product labeling. The court found the defendants guilty of infringement and passing off.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
Interdigital Technology Corporation sued Xiaomi alleging infringement of several Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The current judgment addresses an interlocutory application regarding the establishment and structure of a Confidentiality Club necessary for handling commercially sensitive documents during the patent infringement proceedings. The Court constituted the club, accommodating Xiaomi's objection to a 'two-tier' system.
All India Patent Officers Welfare Association v.Union Of India & Ors
The All India Patent Officers Welfare Association filed a petition alleging that the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) unlawfully provided access to sensitive, unpublished trademark and patent application data to a private multinational company. The petitioner argued this access lacked necessary checks and balances. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and directed an investigation into the matter, setting a timeline for the respondents to file their reply.
Sunil Kishore Ahya v.Election Commission of India
The appellant sought information regarding the design and engineering of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The respondents argued that disclosing this technical information, which falls under patent rights, could enable the manufacturing of spurious machines and threaten the democratic process. The Commission agreed with the respondents' stance.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. filed two suits alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 184753, which covers channel decoding technology used in DVD video players. The plaintiff claimed this patent was essential for the industry. Although the suit patent had expired by the time of judgment, the Delhi High Court found that the defendants were infringing the patent and liable to pay royalties at FRAND rates. Furthermore, due to the defendant's conduct as a former employee, punitive damages were awarded against Rajesh Bansal.
M/S. Iritech Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner sought to quash the 'deemed to be withdrawn' status of its Indian National Phase Patent Application (No. 5272/DELNP/2008) due to a clerical error in the application number being typed as 6272/DELNP/2008 in Form No. 18 and supporting documents. The respondents argued that the correction was sought after the statutory period expired, making it impossible for the Controller to act. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the error clerical and restoring the application.
Acme Tele Power Limited v.Intelux Electronics Private Limited
Acme Tele Power Limited filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against Intelux Electronics Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of IP rights. The matter was transferred to the High Court due to a counter-claim for patent revocation under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw all pending suits and the court dismissed the original suit and counter-claim as withdrawn.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Mercury Electronics & Anr
The dispute concerns the validity of several registered patents. The defendant challenged the validity of these patents in their counter-claim. The court addressed the legal issue of who must prove the patent's invalidity.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal v.M/S Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd.
Revenue appealed an order regarding the recovery of demurrage and detention charges from a patent holder (Shri S. Ramkumar) who had executed a bond during customs clearance suspension due to alleged infringement by dual SIM mobile phones. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commissioner (Appeals)' order was correct in allowing the enforcement of the bond for recovering these ancillary liabilities.
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v.Koninklijke Phillips Electronics
The respondent (Koninklijke Phillips Electronics) sued for permanent injunction against the appellants (Maj. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) regarding infringement of Patent No. 218255. The defendants filed a counter-claim seeking revocation based on the plaintiff's failure to disclose foreign patent applications as required by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the omission was not an unequivocal admission of deliberate suppression and thus revocation is not automatic.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.Ramesh Chopra & Ors.
Instapower Ltd., dealing in energy-efficient lighting under the Insta Power brand, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and declaration that Defendant No. 4's claims regarding sole ownership of LED aviation obstruction light patents were false. The dispute centered on conflicting patent rights concerning LED Aviation Obstruction Lights (AOL).
Salzer Electronics Limited v.S.G.Controls & Switchgear (P) Ltd.
Salzer Electronics Limited appealed against a single judge's order that dismissed its applications seeking temporary injunctions regarding alleged infringement and passing off of its registered patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it lacked necessary details and discussion on the merits of the case.
Nokia Corporation v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel
Nokia Corporation filed a suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement against Bharat Bhogilal Patel, who claimed that Nokia's use of laser marking technology infringed his patents. The court examined evidence showing that the laser engraving process is a known and available technology since 1957, and found that the defendant's actions were groundless threats.
Sandeep Jaidka v.Mukesh Mittal & Anr.
Sandeep Jaidka filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mukesh Mittal & Anr. for infringing his registered patent (No. 231895) related to multi-sensory '4D' effects used in cinema halls. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were willfully using his patented technology, which combines hardware and software to synchronize heating, cooling, and aromatic effects with movie scenes. While the plaintiff asserted infringement, Defendant No. 2 filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity based on prior art. The court denied the interim injunction but expedited the trial, setting conditions for the defendants regarding financial disclosures and security deposits.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Maj. (Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr.
The suit involved Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. seeking permanent injunction against Maj. (Retd) Sukesh Behl and others for infringing its DVD Disc Patents, specifically Patent No. 218255. The Defendants filed a counter claim seeking revocation of the patent on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to disclose details of corresponding foreign applications as mandated by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd
Tega Industries Ltd filed a suit for perpetual injunction alleging that Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd was infringing its patented improved screen panel and fixing arrangement. The court, finding the patent valid and subsisting, granted an interim order restraining the respondent from further infringement.
Dgt Holding B.V. v.Ravi Scientific Industries
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring Dgt Holding B.V., finding no grounds to vacate the order restraining Ravi Scientific Industries from selling deceptively similar chess clocks. The court clarified that even if a design is registered under the Designs Act, a plaintiff can still pursue remedies for passing off and copyright infringement against competitors who are misusing their goodwill and trade dress. This ruling reinforces the availability of common law protections alongside statutory IP rights.
Salzer Electronics Ltd v.Sg Controls And Switchgear
The petitioner, Salzer Electronics Ltd., filed applications seeking an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing their registered patent (No. 198122) related to Integral Cam Operated Rotary Switches, alleging identical manufacture and use of product and trade dress. The respondents countered by challenging the validity of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Glaverbel S.A. v.Dave Rose & Ors.
This case involves Glaverbel S.A., which filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Mirox New Generation Ecological Mirrors' (MNGE mirrors). The plaintiff sought permission to introduce an amended version of Patent No. 190380, which had been allowed in a previous related suit. However, the court ruled against this request, emphasizing that while the amendment might be clarificatory, it cannot be relied upon in the current litigation unless formally recorded and notified by the Patent Office, as the pleadings in the present case relate only to the unamended patent.
Nokia Corporation v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Corporation challenged the Deputy Controller's order which rejected its National Phase Application because it was filed after the stipulated 31-month deadline. The petitioner argued that Rule 138 allowed for a one-month extension and condonation of delay. The High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the application should be decided on merit under Rules 137 & 138.
Asian Electronics Ltd. v.Havells India Limited
Asian Electronics Ltd. filed a suit claiming infringement of its Patent No. 193488, which covers a conversion kit for changing fluorescent lighting units from inductive to electronic operation. Asian alleged that Havells India Limited was manufacturing and selling identical products under the brand Prodigy. The court dismissed the application for temporary injunction due to lack of prima facie merit and failure by the plaintiff to substantiate claims of widespread use.
S.Paul Raj v.Tata Consultancy Services Limited
S.Paul Raj filed two applications seeking an interim injunction against Tata Consultancy Services Limited (TCS) for infringing his copyright and patent regarding his invention, 'FLYGUARD' (e-Passport Smartcard/TCS e-Passport Solution). The applicant claimed TCS was using the concept without permission after initial discussions. However, the court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the ingredients required for granting an interim order.
S.Ram Kumar v.Union Of India
S.Ram Kumar filed multiple Writ Petitions before the Madras High Court challenging various orders passed by Customs authorities concerning the import of his patented technology (Plurality of SIM/Blue Tooth). The petitioner claimed infringement and sought to quash the customs decisions. However, the court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner failed to avail the effective alternate remedy provided under the Customs Act, 1962.
Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd
Tega Industries Ltd filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd, alleging that the latter was infringing Tega's patented improved screen panel and fixing arrangement. The court granted an interim order restraining the respondent from infringing patent no. 231453 until May 13, 2009.
The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal
This case involved a composite suit filed by The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. against Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal, alleging infringement of trademarks, designs, and copyrights related to ceiling fans sold in the Middle East. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that since the infringing goods were manufactured and exported outside India, the Delhi High Court lacked competence for trademark and design claims. The court ultimately held that while it had jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim, it did not possess the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit concerning trademarks, designs, or passing off.
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.