Mechanical — India Patent Cases
274 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 10 · 274 total
Roxtec Ab & Anr v.Sukant Chakravarty & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Roxtec Ab & Anr seeking permission to file rectification petitions against registered trademarks, which the defendants argued were monopolizing common industry terms. The court examined the claims related to a 'Bulls Eye' device mark and the slogan 'We Seal Your World'. While addressing the scope of trademark rights, the Court ultimately disposed of the application but framed an issue regarding whether Roxtec India Private Limited (Plaintiff No. 2) was a necessary party in the ongoing suit.
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.
The Raring Corporation And Anr v.Neogie Engineering Works Pvt Ltd
The petitioners sought interim protection against the respondent for copying their registered design, 'Sonic Nozzle', which is an essential component of their dust suppression system. The dispute centered on whether the respondent's product infringed the petitioner's protected shape and configuration, or if the design was purely functional and therefore unprotectable.
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.
Trex India Pvt. Ltd. v.Cde Asia Limited
The dispute originated from a suit for permanent injunction filed by Cde Asia Limited against Trex India Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of its Patent No. 3072491 and Design No. 2626292 concerning the product 'FM 120 CONEXUS'. The present appeal challenged the Single Judge's order, but the High Court dismissed the appeal on a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability under the Commercial Courts Act.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors.
The dispute concerned alleged patent infringement regarding Ecomax Solutions' Automatic Tube Cleaning System (ATCS) against Energeo Building Solutions' AFCS. The court examined whether the defendants' system infringed the claims of IN 382118. The court found that the AFCS was prima facie dissimilar to the suit patent, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's injunction application.
Sun Hydraulics Llc v.Sun Hydraulics Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff to introduce a rectified Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) late in the proceedings. Although the Defendant argued that the document was already in the Plaintiff's possession and control, the Court found that the newly issued LPC was not available at the time of filing the suit. However, due to the significant delay, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Plaintiff.
Satbir Singh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Satbir Singh appealed the rejection of his patent application for a 'Pellet Feed Manufacturing Plant'. The Assistant Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive steps and that it was merely an arrangement or re-arrangement. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the objection under Section 3(f) was not afforded to the Appellant during the examination process.
P.Periyasamy v.M/S.Jaya Jeya Agro Mills
The plaintiff filed civil suits alleging that the defendants infringed his registered copyright concerning the artistic and literary work detailing a precast concrete chimney. The court addressed multiple suits, ultimately dismissing C.S.No.102/2018 as not pressed for against one defendant, while granting relief in C.S.No.96/2018.
M/s. Indo Mim Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Pabitra Kumar Swain
The plaintiff, a company specializing in MIM products, filed a suit against its former employee (Defendant No. 1) and his new employer (Defendant No. 2), alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement by soliciting employees and customers after resignation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations regarding solicitation and loss, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary filed a writ petition seeking mandamus from the Delhi High Court to compel the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to restore his patent application. The application, for a "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," had been deemed abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. Chaudhary contended that the abandonment was an error caused by his erstwhile Patent Agent and that he never intended to abandon the invention.
Impact Selector International Llc v.Controller Of Patents
Impact Selector International Llc appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Field Adjustable Impact JAR' by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that the Patent Office must pass a reasoned or 'speaking' order when rejecting an application based on lack of inventive step. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by another officer.
Alfred Von Schukmann v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Alfred Von Schukmann appealed the rejection of his patent application, titled 'Step-Action Indexing Mechanism,' which was denied by the Patent Office on grounds of lacking inventive step. The appellant argued that the Patent Office's order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that a reasoned decision is mandatory when rejecting an application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Toshiba appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its process patent application (No. 5817/DELNP/2013). The High Court found the original rejection order completely unreasoned and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for a fresh decision.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8620/DELNP/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The original rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the claimed method for repairing a gas flue inside was merely standard operation or part of an operational manual. Nippon Steel contended that its claims disclosed several unique technical steps ignored by the Examiner. The Delhi High Court issued directions for both parties to file detailed submissions and supporting documents before proceeding with the appeal.
Art Screw Co., Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Art Screw Co., Ltd. appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller denying its patent application for 'Fastener and Fastening Structure' on grounds of lack of inventive step over prior art. The High Court found that the original order lacked proper reasoning and comprehension, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon their Indian Patent (IN 296857) related to piston compressor crankcases. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, setting out procedural directions for filing written statements and addressing various interlocutory applications.
Inventio Ag And Anr v.Schneider Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Inventio Ag And Anr. against a newly formed company, VDMIL Elevator India. The court found that this new entity was being used to circumvent existing trademark injunctions previously passed against the original defendants (Schneider Elevator). The order restrains the proposed defendant from using marks or logos deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks and from mimicking the plaintiff's website look and feel.
Rms Fire And Safety Services Pvt Ltd v.Ispl Automation Pvt Ltd
The appellant challenged the revocation of their patent for a Motor Bike Fire Engine granted in 2019. The case was heard by the Delhi High Court to determine its territorial jurisdiction over an appeal originating from the Mumbai Patent Office. Ultimately, the court held that since the appropriate office was in Mumbai, it lacked jurisdiction.
Avery Dennison Corporation v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Avery Dennison Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for 'Notched Fastener' due to lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the specific features (notch creation, position, shape, direction) provided a technical advancement over prior art documents D2 and D3. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, finding that the invention satisfied the test of inventive step.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves Sotkon Sp Slu alleging that Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.'s technical specifications and products for underground bins infringe upon its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse'. The Plaintiff had previously secured an interim injunction based on a prima facie comparison showing similarity between the parties' designs. During the hearing, the court addressed arguments regarding deviations in supplied goods versus bid documents. While noting that the Defendants were prima facie guilty of contempt due to non-compliance with the existing order, the Court granted them one last opportunity to present evidence upon depositing a substantial sum.
Cinni Foundation Through Managing Trustee Dipak Kumar Sah v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Cinni Foundation challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'CINNI' in Class 07, which relates to pumps. The court issued notice and directed that the respondents be served with the appeal documents. Both matters were subsequently listed for a detailed hearing on January 16, 2023.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. v.Union Of India & Anr.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. challenged the Controller of Patents' orders that deemed several of their patent applications abandoned and caused a granted patent to lapse, citing failure to file timely responses or renewal fees. The Petitioners argued that delays were due to issues with their Patent Agent and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delhi High Court acknowledged these facts, quashing the abandonment orders and directing the restoration of all relevant applications and patents.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The suit involved allegations of infringement against the subject matter of Plaintiff No. 1's registered Patents. The parties amicably resolved the dispute regarding legal costs, leading to a settlement.
Dahon Technologies Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Dahon Technologies Ltd. appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its invention titled 'PUMP', a portable pump for bicycle tyres. The appellant contended that the rejection was non-speaking, violated principles of natural justice, and failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Patents Act.
Art Screw Co., Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Art Screw Co., Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application (No. 6541/DELNP/ 2011) by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which cited lack of inventive step. The court directed the petitioner to place international granted patents on record and ordered further submissions from both parties.
Usha International Limited v.Mr Haseen Ahmed Trading As Tusha Sewing Machine Co
The plaintiff, Usha International Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was adopting the deceptively similar mark 'TUSHA' in relation to sewing machines, infringing upon the plaintiff's well-known mark 'USHA'. The court granted an interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize all infringing goods manufactured under the disputed marks.
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.