Mechanical — India Patent Cases
195 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 7 · 195 total
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method of activating a continuous annealing furnace. The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art (D1 and D2). The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the Controller.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Mr. Kalyan Singh & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patents, specifically concerning distributor plates and turbo tips compatible with SANDVIK VSI crushers. After initial ex parte orders, the matter was disposed of at a summary stage upon concession by the defendant regarding the injunction.
Leonhard Kurz Stiftung And Co. Kg v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of the Appellant's patent application, which held that subsequent amendments were outside the scope of the original filing. The High Court found that the amended claims referenced the complete specifications as originally filed. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Patents Office.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. filed an appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 495/DEL/2013). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1999. The court issued directions for notice and filing of replies.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a suit alleging infringement of its Patent No. 271425 against Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation. Concurrently, the defendants filed a counter claim seeking the revocation of this patent. The Gujarat High Court examined both the infringement claims and the validity challenges raised by the defendants. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove infringement, and consequently, rejected the counter claim for revocation, affirming the novelty and inventive step of the suit patent.
Sulzer Mixpac Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sulzer Mixpac Ag appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'STATIC MIXER' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in view of cited prior art documents (D1-D4). The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Patent Office's objections.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8954/CHENP/2014) concerning an ARC-Welding method and apparatus. The appeal challenged the Controller's decision, arguing that the rejection based on lack of inventive step was not adequately reasoned or explained in the impugned order.
BASF SE v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
BASF SE appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application for an 'Auxiliary spring having axially running contour elements'. The rejection was based on various objections, including procedural and technical ones. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the cosmetic objection should not deny the applicant their rights, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. v.Mr Vishal Choudhary
The plaintiffs, SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors., filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Mr. Vishal Choudhary for allegedly manufacturing and selling similar brick making machines that infringe on their patents (Nos. 353483, 359114, etc.) and copyrights in technical literature. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of infringement.
Omega SA v.The Controller of Patents & Design, Government of India
Omega SA appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a ceramic element inlaid with metallic decoration, which was rejected by the Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller failed to apply his mind properly to the issue and equated the hyper-precision technology to ordinary laser etching. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Alpha Werke Alwin Lehner Gmbh And Co Kg v.Ssf Plastics India Private Limited & Anr
Alpha Werke Alwin Lehner Gmbh And Co Kg appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 10851/DELNP/2014) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on insufficient disclosure and lack of inventive step, as also in the context of a pre-grant opposition.
Wb Innovations Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order refusing patent application No. 2293/DELNP/2011, which cited issues regarding lack of single inventive concept and incomplete specification. The Delhi High Court found that the refusal reasoning did not meet legal requirements and allowed the appeal.
Victaulic Company v.Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Mechanical Pipe Coupling having Spacers' on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The appellant argued that its invention, featuring a collapsible spacer, provided an advantage not present in the cited prior art (D1 and D2).
Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application, which cited three pieces of prior art (D1, D2, D3) as making the invention obvious. The court found that the impugned order failed to provide a useful analysis of how the combination of prior arts led to the conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, the court noted the rejection of amendments lacked proper discussion.
NHK Spring Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
NHK Spring Co Ltd appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their patent application on grounds of 'lack of inventive step'. The appellant argued that the Impugned Order failed to provide adequate reasoning as to how the ground of obviousness was made out based on cited prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's analysis insufficient.
Gala Industries, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Gala Industries appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Centrifugal Pellet Dryer Screen With Integral Embossed Deflector Strips'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, relying on prior arts D1 and D3. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, noting that the invention improved upon D1 by using embossing instead of nut-bolting.
Huck International, Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Huck International appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application based on an objection under Section 16 of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that they were denied a fair opportunity because the final decision was based on an objection not enumerated in the initial hearing notice. The Court agreed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Respondent to issue a fresh notice.
Toyo Aluminium Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting their patent application ('MULTILAYER BODY AND CONTAINER') due to non-compliance with requirements for inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The court allowed a procedural exemption and directed the respondent counsel to file written submissions before listing the matter further.
Arkema France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Arkema France appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a 'Heat Transfer Method'. The appellant argued that the rejection relied heavily on a new prior art document (D5) introduced only at the hearing stage. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing potential amendments under Section 59 if disclosure is deemed inadequate.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for a 'Washing Machine' due to lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked detailed reasoning and cited foreign grants. The High Court found that the impugned order merely extracted prior art without engaging with the appellant's submissions, thus lacking reasons.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
JFE Steel Corporation filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents' decision to refuse its patent application. The refusal was based on the grounds that the claims did not fulfill the criteria of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application (737/DELNP/2009) for a wear assembly. The rejection was based on lack of distinct invention and inventive step. The High Court quashed the rejection, holding that objections must be restricted to those provided in writing, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Mr Archit Lohia & Ors. v.Ons Mechcon Project Private Limited & Anr.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants' product, 'Alumina Ceramic Adjustable Line Orifice', infringes upon their Indian Patent IN355705 concerning a variable orifice for regulating mass transport. The court registered the plaint and issued orders regarding pleadings, interim injunctions, and exemption from pre-institution mediation.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Kba Notasys Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for printing currency notes. The core dispute revolved around whether the prior art documents cited in the International Search Report (ISR) could be considered grounds for rejection during the appeal process. The court acknowledged the relevance of the ISR citations but directed the Respondent No. 2 to file written submissions on this specific point.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary filed a writ petition challenging the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching." The Petitioner sought restoration of the application, alleging that repeated follow-ups to their patent agent were ignored, leading to the deemed abandonment. The Court directed the Patent Agent firm to file an affidavit detailing all correspondence related to the abandonment process. Furthermore, the bench raised broader concerns regarding the lack of regulatory supervision over IP agents in India.
Enconcore N.V. v.Anjani Technoplast Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing its patented technology related to folded honeycomb sandwich panels (Therm-Hex technology). The court held an interim hearing, modifying existing injunctions and imposing conditions on the defendants regarding sales reporting and security deposit.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application for 'Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Excellent in Magnetic Properties'. The Appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide a proper hearing and did not adequately discuss the novelty and inventive step objections. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order summarily rejected the application without due consideration of prior art, leading to its remand.
Ajay Panwar v.Kishore Chhabra
The appeal involved a request by Ajay Panwar (appellant/defendant No. 2) to stay the execution of an earlier judgment restraining him from using specific machinery. The respondent claimed patent rights over the machinery and copyright protection for drawings related thereto.
Titan Umreifungstechnik Gmbh And Co. Kg v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a plastic strapping band. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step and vagueness in claims (Section 10(4)). The High Court found the rejection unreasoned, particularly regarding Section 10(4), and allowed the appeal.
Rosemount Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Rosemount Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a 'Process Device with Density Measurement.' The Controller had rejected the patent citing lack of inventive steps based on prior art. However, the Delhi High Court found that the Controller's impugned order was cryptic and failed to provide adequate reasoning or analyze the three essential elements required to determine inventive step. Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration with a mandate for a reasoned decision.
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.