Medical_Devices — India Patent Cases
85 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 3 · 85 total
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a method of integrity testing a liquid sterilizing grade filter due to lack of inventive step. The court allowed the amendment sought by the appellant and partially set aside the refusal order, remanding the matter back to the Respondent for fresh examination.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v.Rspl Limited
The court addressed a counter claim filed by Rspl Limited seeking revocation of Indian Patent IN 339964, titled 'Absorbent Article Demonstrating Controlled Deformation And Longitudinal Fluid Distribution'. Additionally, an application was filed for staying the said patent.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Faiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim
The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.
Jesal Vimal Jetha v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the Controller's refusal of a patent application for a customizable comforter system, citing failure to meet objections under Section 2(1)(ja). The appellant argued that the decision was mechanical and violated natural justice due to procedural irregularities in handling prior art documents. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Dr. Dulal Kumar De v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his patent application for 'Herbal Anti-Venom against Catfish Sting' on grounds of abandonment. The core dispute revolved around whether the service of the First Examination Report (FER) via email, rather than registered post, invalidated the time limits under the Patents Act, 1970.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v.Rspl Limited
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of their patent (IN 339964) by Defendant's products. The court, while considering an application for interim injunction, raised serious doubts regarding the authenticity and timing of the technical expert affidavit provided by the Plaintiffs.
Neeraj Gupta v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Neeraj Gupta appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected his patent application for an 'Intravenous Catheter Device.' The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, citing specific prior art. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider detailed submissions and oral arguments, thereby violating natural justice. The Delhi High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside both the initial rejection order and the subsequent dismissal of the review petition.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Aethlon Medical, Inc appealed an order refusing to grant its patent application for a medical device used in extracorporeal removal of microvesicular particles. The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court examined the matter, accepting the auxiliary claims as permissible amendments within the specification. Ultimately, the court found that the merits had not been fully examined and remanded the case back to the Controller General for fresh consideration, granting the appellant a hearing.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Oura Health Oy & Anr.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.
Ranjani Ramesh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order rejecting Patent Application No. 202141032403, which related to a system for identifying micro-motions for early detection of neuro-degenerative diseases. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability grounds. The High Court set aside the impugned order because it did not follow a robust obviousness analysis and failed to record findings regarding all objections raised in the FER.
E3D A.C. A. L. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the respondent on January 27, 2025, which refused the Indian patent application titled 'MULTIPLE USE COMPUTERIZED INJECTOR'. The court first allowed the application seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing the appeal and granted exemptions for documentation.
ITC Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
ITC Ltd appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark regarding its patent application for an 'Electronic Aerosol Generating Device'. ITC contended that the rejection was based on technical materials not provided to them, violating principles of natural justice. Given this procedural lapse, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original rejection and remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design regarding its application for 'TISSUE SCAFFOLDS DERIVED FROM FORESTOMACH EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX'. The invention relates to an implantable tissue scaffold device using ruminant forestomach extracellular matrix, intended for applications like wound repair and breast augmentation. The initial rejection was based on grounds including Sections 3(b) and (i), and failure to comply with Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,' which was denied under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the invention on grounds that its use could cause serious prejudice to human health or public order. ITC argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoned basis, and violated principles of natural justice due to the introduction of unsupplied documents. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh decision after ensuring all parties are heard.
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademark And Anr.
Andreas Gutzeit appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which rejected his patent application, "Blood Flow Control System and Method for In-vivo Imaging and Other Application," primarily on grounds of non-compliance with Section 59 of the Patents Act. The core dispute centered on whether the amendment—specifically changing the claim from a method to a system—was permissible under the law. The Calcutta High Court found serious infirmities in the Controller's order, noting that it failed to properly assess if the amendments broadened the scope beyond the original specification. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on the merits.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel chemical-based nicotine aerosol delivery device. The Controller had rejected the application, citing public health concerns related to nicotine and referencing various statutes. ITC argued that since the device operates purely through a chemical reaction without electrical components, it should not be classified as an ENDS or e-cigarette. The Calcutta High Court ultimately ruled in favor of ITC Limited, emphasizing international IP principles (TRIPS and Paris Convention) which mandate that patentability cannot be denied merely because commercial exploitation is restricted by domestic law.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.Union of India
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited challenged the granting of Indian Patent No. 439474, which was issued despite a rejected pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner. The core dispute centered on whether the Controller had adequately reasoned and considered the material evidence presented by both parties regarding novelty and inventive step. Although the court initially questioned the maintainability of the writ petition as an appeal in disguise, it ultimately allowed the petitioner to file a post-grant opposition.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant challenged demands raised by the Department regarding non-payment of service tax on royalty charges collected from group companies for using the "TTK" logo. The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant challenged demands raised by the Department regarding non-payment of service tax on royalty charges received for using the "TTK" logo. The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co appealed against demands for service tax on royalty charges collected by group companies for using their logo "TTK". The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under Copyright Act and thus exempt from service tax.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant challenged demands raised by the Department regarding non-payment of service tax on royalty charges collected from group companies for using the "TTK" logo. The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant, engaged in trading and distribution of consumer durables and health care products, was charged service tax on royalty received for using its logo "TTK" across group companies. The Department argued the logo functioned as a Trademark (IPR Service), while the Appellant contended it was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, exempting it from IPR service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in favor of the Appellant.
Indian Institute Of Science (Oa ...) v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected a patent application related to microfluidic apparatuses for quantifying component concentration. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked independent application of mind, and violated principles of natural justice due to the absence of reasoned justification.
Navya Network Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Navya Network Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'TREATMENT RELATED QUANTITATIVE DECISION ENGINE'. The Controller raised objections regarding lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and exclusion under Section 3(k). The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was obvious to a Person Skilled in the Art (PSITA) based on cited prior art.
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc challenged the refusal of its patent application concerning 'Electroporation Devices and Methods.' The appeal argued that the Assistant Controller's order was unreasoned, failing to provide a clear justification for rejecting the invention based on prior art D4 and D5. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and lacking necessary analysis regarding inventive step. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The court heard multiple connected matters concerning the procurement of rare disease medicines, specifically those used for DMD patients. The petitioner argued that the current patient-to-patient process is extremely cumbersome and inefficient. Consequently, the court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a bulk procurement process and disclose its relevant patent information.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to these medicines.
Biotyx Medical (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Biotyx Medical challenged the refusal of its patent application for an absorbable iron-based alloy implantable medical device. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of novelty and inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient scientific reasoning and proper methodology in adjudicating the invention's merits. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application back to the Controller for a detailed assessment of the inventive step.
Somalogic Operating Co., INC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Somalogic Operating Co. appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'CARDIOVASCULAR RISK EVENT PREDICTION AND USES THEREOF'. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed invention qualified as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to argue against the classification and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
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.