Mechanical — India Patent Cases
320 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 11 · 320 total
Novenco Building And Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The appellant (Novenco) filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents and designs by the respondent (Xero Energy). The High Court rejected the plaint due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, citing a delay between discovery and filing. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that continuous infringement and public interest in preventing market confusion establish urgency, regardless of the time lag.
Rajesh Pal Sharma v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Rajesh Pal Sharma filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1, which rejected his Indian Patent Application No. 201811004587. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies within specified timelines.
M/S.Texmo Industries v.Mukesh Lamba
The Madras High Court addressed a complex intellectual property dispute involving M/S.Texmo Industries against Mukesh Lamba regarding the use of similar marks for pump goods. The suit claimed infringement under Trademark Act provisions, alongside copyright violations related to website design and content. Ultimately, the court decreed the case based on a compromise memorandum entered into by both parties, resolving the multi-faceted dispute.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited
The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging patent infringement regarding heat exchanger plates. The Defendants asserted that their product does not infringe the suit patent. To resolve this dispute, the Court ordered the appointment of an independent Scientific Advisor to inspect the impugned product and provide a technical report on potential overlap with the patented claims.
Stromag Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark
Stromag Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application, 'HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE', which was denied primarily due to a lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide sufficient reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for lacking reasoned analysis, setting it aside and remanding the matter.
Caterpillar Inc v.Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd and Others
Caterpillar Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd for infringing Caterpillar's patents, designs, and trade marks related to fluid filter systems used in construction machinery. The court granted several interim applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and secure the alleged infringing stock.
K.Gobinath v.Anugraha Valve Castings Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the framing of issues in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioners argued that the court failed to frame an issue regarding the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'Anugraha' trademark registration, which they claimed was based on fraud and common usage. However, the High Court ultimately allowed the petition partly by directing the Commercial Court to frame specific additional issues concerning the validity of the mark.
Caterpillar Inc. v.Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Caterpillar Inc. filed a suit against Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented and designed fluid filter systems used in construction and mining machinery. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing these rights. Furthermore, the court permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect premises, seize infringing goods, and take samples for analysis.
Ozone Overseas Private Limited v.Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Hardware Solutions & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Ozone Overseas Private Limited, a leading global provider of architectural hardware. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants, recognizing the urgency of seeking an ad interim injunction. Crucially, the court allowed for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct searches and seizures at the defendant's premises, ensuring evidence preservation in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
Aquestia Limited v.Automat Industries Private Limited
Aquestia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Automat Industries Private Limited and its affiliates for infringing Aquestia's registered patent, 'A Fluid Control Valve' (IN 427050). The plaintiff argued that the defendants were imitating established industry products, including the Series 75 valve, and selling infringing products both domestically and internationally. After considering arguments regarding infringement, delay, and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Aquestia Limited.
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd v.Controller Of Patents and Designs and Another
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting their patent registration based on cited prior art. The court recognized the need for expert opinion to determine if the invention possessed inventive steps over the existing prior art documents.
Mohun Nicholas D'Souza v.The Controller of Patents of Designs
The petitioner challenged the refusal of his patent application, titled "TAMPER EVIDENT TWIST SEAL WITH BREAKAWAY ANCHOR MECHANISM," which was rejected on grounds of lack of inventive steps/obviousness under Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the Controller failed to conduct a proper analysis regarding obviousness, specifically failing to consider the differences between the claimed invention and prior art as pointed out by the applicant.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, Quality Tools Srl, appealed against an order rejecting its Patent Application (3902/NP/2010) due to a perceived lack of inventive steps. The court found that the rejection order was devoid of proper reasoning and failed to apply sufficient judicial mind. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
L And T Valves Limited v.M/S Ksa Valve Control Inc. & Ors.
In a case concerning the alleged passing off of its goods, L And T Valves Limited successfully secured several critical interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation due to the sensitive nature of the industry (defence, aerospace, oil & gas). Crucially, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with powers to search and seize infringing products at the defendants' premises, providing a strong procedural step in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dong Yang Pc, Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2554/DEL/2013) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step in view of prior art D-5. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
MKU LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. VAIBHAV GUPTA v.ASHISH KANSAL & ANR.
The petitioner filed petitions seeking revocation of two patents (No. 332770 and No. 332684) related to protective ballistic helmets under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice to all respondents and set dates for further proceedings.
M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar & Anr.
In a trademark dispute concerning bearing group products, the Delhi High Court issued an order on May 14, 2025. The court noted that negotiation talks between M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and the respondents were still ongoing. Consequently, the court decided to renotify the parties for further proceedings on August 7, 2025, indicating a continued focus on out-of-court resolution.
M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar & Anr.
In a trademark dispute concerning bearing group products, the Delhi High Court issued an order on May 14, 2025. The court noted that negotiation talks between M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and the respondents were still ongoing. Consequently, the court decided to renotify the parties for further proceedings on August 7, 2025, indicating a continued focus on out-of-court resolution.
M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar & Anr.
In a trademark dispute concerning bearing group products, the Delhi High Court issued an order on May 14, 2025. The court noted that negotiation talks between M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and the respondents were still ongoing. Consequently, the court decided to renotify the parties for further proceedings on August 7, 2025, indicating a continued focus on out-of-court resolution.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order revoking Patent No. 452008, which covered an Intelligent Cooking Stove System. The revocation was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application for a superior beverage dispenser. The appeal argued that the rejection order failed to analyze the appellant's submissions distinguishing the invention from cited prior art. The High Court held that the Controller must pass a speaking order analyzing all elements, and consequently set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. appealed against the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was mechanical, merely copying prior art extracts without providing reasoned justification for why the invention lacked inventive step. The Court agreed, finding the impugned order lacked proper application of mind.
Syrma Sgs Electronic Pvt Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 483156, which relates to a backpack with an avalanche safety system. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning the submission and exemption of documents. Notice was issued to all respondents for further proceedings.
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.The Controller of Patent and Designs
The Petitioners challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a 'Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal,' which was rejected under Section 25(1)(b) due to lack of novelty/inventive step. The court examined whether the seal provided a technical advancement over cited prior art documents, including US5419599.
Vennootschap v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application, which was based on a lack of inventive steps. The petitioner argued that the rejection was mechanically passed and violated natural justice because new prior art (D-2) was introduced at the hearing stage without being mentioned in the initial examination report. The Court agreed, finding no reasons in the impugned order.
Ori-Plast Limited v.Molecor Tecnologia S.L.
Ori-Plast Limited sought an injunction against Molecor Tecnologia S.L., which had terminated a license agreement related to the use of the Molecor PVC-O System. The petitioner feared that the withdrawal of remote assistance would cause irreparable loss, while the respondent argued for immediate termination based on alleged breaches of confidentiality and reverse engineering.
Vellaisamy Thavamani Pandi v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged an order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs, which refused to grant a patent for 'System for construction of composite U shaped reinforced girders bridge deck' under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellants argued that the refusal was arbitrary because the respondent failed to consider their foreign patents and made contradictory findings regarding inventive step.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a registered patent for a self-locking glazing system. The present application sought permission to take on record additional invoices and bank statements, which were needed to respond to objections raised by the defendant regarding discrepancies in earlier filings. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC.
Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited v.Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd., Utracon Management Pte Ltd., and Utracon Engineering Services Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple arbitration applications seeking various interim injunctions against Utracon entities. The applicants, Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited, sought protection against client/employee poaching and the use of the 'UTRACON' name and logo. However, the court found that the non-compete and non-solicitation clause in the underlying Sale of Shares Agreement had expired after 10 years. Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, leading to the dismissal of all interim relief requests.
Mr.Rahul Bagga v.The Controller of Patent
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an abandonment order related to his patent application (No. 202041009246). The petitioner argued that he was unable to upload the response to the First Examination Report on the deadline due to technical/server errors on the respondent's website. The court found merit in this claim and ordered the abandonment quashed, directing the respondent to accept the response.
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.