Energy — India Patent Cases
15 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 15 total
Jurchen Group GmbH v.Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited
Jurchen Group GmbH, a German company, filed a patent infringement suit against Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN-449314 titled 'Retaining System for Installing a Photovoltaic Module.' The plaintiff sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing in the allegedly infringing solar mounting system installed at a project site in Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu. The court extended the previously granted interim injunction until further orders and listed the matter after two weeks for further hearing.
Kannan Gopalakrishnan v.Controller of Patents
Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenged the proceedings of the Controller of Patents, arguing that his patent application for 'Solar Supplemental Power Source' was rejected and subsequently his review petition was dismissed without giving him a fair hearing opportunity. The petitioner sought to demonstrate the working prototype before the Patent Office.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice issued by Respondent No. 2 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202017037539. After reviewing submissions and noting the lack of reply from respondent no. 2, the court directed both parties to file their short notes of submissions.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order deeming abandonment of its Indian Patent Application (No. 202017037539) under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner claims they received no information regarding the response deadline for the first examination report and that the failure was due to lack of communication from the Second Patent Agent (SPA).
Sumitomo Shi FW Energia Oy v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the refusal order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, which rejected its patent application for a circulating fluidized bed boiler due to lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that their improvisation introduced significant advantages over prior art, such as reduced heat exchanges and improved efficiency. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Sintex Industries Ltd. v.Acme Tale Power Ltd And Anr (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited)
Sintex Industries Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 2137154, titled "Phase Change Material," which was granted to Acme Tele Power Limited (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited). The court considered an affidavit from the respondent confirming that while they were previously in the telecom industry, their current focus is renewable energy and solar power projects. Crucially, the respondent stated they had no objection to the patent being revoked prospectively.
General Electric Company v.Union Of India And Anr.
General Electric Company challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Controller arbitrarily revisited the non-patentability objection under Section 3(k) without providing a proper opportunity for defense or written submissions. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter, directing the Patent Office to provide a hearing on all objections.
Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN254458 before the Delhi High Court. The contesting respondent raised objections regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the patent was granted in Chennai and an earlier revocation petition had already been filed before IPAB, Chennai.
Wind World (India) Limited v.Enercon GmbH
Wind World (India) Limited challenged an arbitral tribunal's order that directed them to produce documents and granted interim measures. The dispute arose from various agreements, including the Intellectual Property Licensing Agreement. The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it contrary to law.
Desai Haribhai Jeshangbhai v.Ministry Of Power - Govt Of India
The petitioner, who is a retired Assistant Agriculture Engineer and holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering, filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking assistance with his pending patent application related to electrical power production engineering. The Central Electricity Authority requested details of a working model for the innovation. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner must take further steps to submit a prototype/working model.
Dr. Aloys Wobben and another v.Yogesh Mehra and others
Dr. Aloys Wobben (Appellant) filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others (Respondents), who were also filing revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court examined whether these two actions could proceed concurrently.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Yogesh Mehra
Dr. Aloys Wobben filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others, despite them having already filed numerous revocation petitions before the IPAB challenging his patents. The Supreme Court addressed whether these two proceedings could run concurrently.
Enercon (India) Ltd. v.Enercon Gmbh
This appeal concerned a joint venture between Enercon (India) Ltd. and Enercon Gmbh, which involved the manufacture and sale of Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs). The dispute centered on whether various agreements, particularly the Intellectual Property License Agreement (IPLA), constituted legally binding contracts despite discrepancies.
Enercon (India) Ltd. v.Enercon GmbH
This case involved disputes between Enercon (India) Ltd. and Enercon GmbH concerning a joint venture business manufacturing Wind Turbine Generators (WTG's). The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of their Intellectual Property License Agreement (IPLA), which covered technical know-how for producing these generators. The petitions challenged previous court orders regarding arbitration and an anti-suit injunction, leading the Bombay High Court to clarify jurisdictional issues.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Yogesh Mehra & Ors.
Dr. Aloys Wobben appealed a judgment regarding whether the respondents, who were defendants in infringement suits, could pursue their own counter claims for revocation of Dr. Wobben's patents before the IPAB while those infringement suits were ongoing. The court examined the distinction between the current situation and previous legal precedents involving simultaneous remedies.
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.