Other — India Patent Cases
438 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 15 · 438 total
Amazon Technologies Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Amazon Technologies Inc. appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing to grant a patent for its invention (Application No. 5937/CHENP/2010). The appeal challenged the refusal on the ground that it lacked inventive step, arguing that the refusal order was non-speaking as it failed to provide reasons for how the cited prior art documents applied to the claimed invention.
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. v.Abhishek Sapra
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. challenged an arbitral award, alleging that Abhishek Sapra violated a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and service contract by diverting vital company information during his employment as Financial Controller. The petitioner sought damages for this breach. The Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court cannot review the dispute on merits or set aside the award without finding patent illegality.
M/s.Haldor Topsoe A/S v.Controller of Patents & Designs, Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order dated 09.03.2021 rejecting/abandoning their patent application (No. 297/CHE/2012). The petitioner argued that the rejection violated natural justice and was based on non-application of mind, as no proper second examination report was conducted. The Court found the order unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and quashed it, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice concerning its Indian Patent Application (No. 202017037539). The petitioner argued that they never received the communication regarding the First Examination Report (FER) due to coordination issues between patent agents in Canada and India. The Court found that since the deadline was missed due to non-receipt of the FER, it set aside the abandonment order and revived the application.
Swatch Ag And Ors v.Labham Agarwaal and Ors
The Swatch Group (and its associate companies) filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against several defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their luxury watch brands. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately prove their case during the trial, particularly regarding the seized goods and wrappers.
Department of Atomic Energy v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Department of Atomic Energy challenged an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents refusing to process its patent application No. 201921029932, citing a delay in submitting the power of attorney. The petitioner argued that they had substituted a fresh power of attorney which was accepted by the respondents. The High Court quashed the refusal order, finding it passed without proper consideration and violating natural justice.
M/s Architectural Solution and Production v.Sandeep Kumar Jangid Trading as M/s Bhavishya
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging illegal acts of infringement, piracy, passing-off, and unfair trade competition against the defendant regarding its registered design. The plaintiff is involved in manufacturing and trading lamps and LED lights. The court passed a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
BASF SE v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
BASF SE appealed an order by the Deputy Controller refusing to grant a patent for a Divisional Application. The refusal was based partly on the timing (filing after original patent grant) and lack of distinctiveness. The High Court quashed the order, finding that the timing issue was not proven against the appellant and that principles of natural justice were violated.
BASF SE v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
BASF SE appealed against an order refusing to grant a patent for its Divisional Application. The refusal was based partly on timing and lack of distinctiveness. The High Court quashed the order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the fact that the application was filed on the same day as the original patent grant, and also violated principles of natural justice.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that defendants had infringed his copyrights by copying the content of two Marathi language books. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale and publication of these alleged duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal, finding prima facie no merit in the plaintiff's case regarding the grant of temporary relief.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that the respondents copied the entire content of his two Marathi language books, 'Hkkjrh; vFkZO;oLFkk' and 'Hkkjrh; jkT;?kVuk iz'kklu'. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale of these allegedly duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal filed by the plaintiff, finding prima facie no merit in his case.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed applications seeking intervention to prevent the disclosure of a Patent License Agreement (PLA) dated 1st June, 2014, between Samsung and InterDigital Group Companies. The dispute centered on whether the PLA could be shared with defendants' in-house representatives within a confidentiality club established by the court. The Court ultimately directed that the PLA must be shown to the defendants' representatives, subject to specific restrictions.
Klf Nirmal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Mr. Johnson Varghese
The appellant filed a commercial appeal challenging the refusal by the lower court to grant an ex-parte interim injunction and appoint a local commissioner regarding alleged copyright infringement and passing off. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It held that since the order refusing the injunction was not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC, the appeal was not maintainable and consequently dismissed.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers (P) Ltd. v.News Tamil 24 x 7 / S Plus Media Ltd.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers challenged an earlier dismissal order by the Commercial Division regarding its request for permanent injunctions against News Tamil 24 x 7 and S Plus Media Ltd. The core dispute involved allegations of passing off a mark ('KAZHUGU') and copyright infringement related to 'MISTER KAZHUGU'. The Madras High Court, while noting that the original order failed to compare the competing marks adequately, opted for a consent order.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed against the rejection of its patent by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Design. The appellant argued that the rejection, which relied upon Section 3(d) of The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, was incorrect. The Court directed both parties to file replies and rejoinders.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company filed an appeal against a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs. The company, citing procedural difficulties inherent to being a foreign entity, sought condonation for a two-month delay in filing the appeal. The Calcutta High Court accepted the grounds presented, finding sufficient cause for the delay.
Ppc Broadband Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ppc Broadband Inc filed an appeal challenging an impugned order dated 28.03.2024 which held that its patent application subject matter ('REEL ENCLOSURES') fell under Section 2(1)(ia) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed applications for exemption from filing documents and condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the appeal.
Kawakami, Shigeki & Ors. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application. The core issue was that the rejection was based on a ground (lack of novelty) which was not included in the initial hearing notice, violating the Principles of Natural Justice. The Court found that since the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to address this specific objection, the impugned order suffered from procedural irregularities.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court passed an order framing issues in the suit concerning the validity and enforceability of Plaintiff's Suit Patent IN 363203 against the Defendants. The court also appointed a Commissioner to record evidence and set out a tentative timeline for the trial.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their Patent Application No. 202117030336. The court issued notice and directed the matter to be listed before a specific Bench.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal of its patent application (no. 202217036137) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court issued notice to the respondent and granted time for filing a reply, setting the matter for renotification.
Natera Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natera Inc appealed against an order issued by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that its patent application (No. 18/DELNP/2015) was not patentable due to non-compliance with various sections of the Patent Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation has appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Patent Application No. 201617000209. The appellant contends that the respondent failed to consider their detailed submissions regarding the invention requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application. The Controller refused the grant on the ground that the invention related to tobacco use, which causes serious prejudice to human life or health, making it ineligible under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders & Anr.
Mohd Shakir appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed his petition seeking cancellation or rectification of a work registered under No. A-120894/2017, which was claimed by Gopal Traders & Anr. The core dispute revolves around the mark "MYA," where the appellant claims prior rights based on third-party trademark registrations held by Mr Youssef and Mya International. The court found the matter required examination and issued notice to all respondents.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application, which had been rejected by the Controller despite prior rulings from the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court found that the Controller disregarded established legal precedent and allowed the appeal.
Nakul v.Versuni India Home Solutions Limited
The court addressed several procedural matters in CS(COMM) 225/2024 and CS(COMM) 226/2024. It allowed the plaintiff time to file replication, issued notice for the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of Patent No. 319855, and granted permission to the defendant to submit prior art evidence via a pen drive.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite having been provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
M/s.The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and leaves. The appellant argued that the product was novel and not merely traditional knowledge, while the respondents contended that the invention fell under Section 3(p) as it related to traditional ingredients and was obvious based on prior art D1 to D3.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A has filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its application (No. 201617028283). The refusal was based on the ground that the invention is not patentable under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, specifically concerning E-cigarettes.
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.