Other — India Patent Cases
466 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 16 · 466 total
Dolby International Ab v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dolby International Ab appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 6570/DELNP/2009) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was arbitrary, incomprehensible, and lacked any proper reasoning or due application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union of India & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a review application challenging the order of a Single Judge regarding the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the review application, holding that the petitioner had not adequately argued or pleaded the issue of constitutional validity in the original writ petition.
Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Relaxo Footwears Limited
Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd appealed against the registration granted to Relaxo Footwears Limited for a slipper design. The Supreme Court accepted a new design from Aqualite and ordered that the pending appeals and related applications be disposed of, subject to the parties being bound by their statements.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt Ltd v.Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
The petitioner sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. 301322 (Impugned Patent) registered in favour of Respondents No. 1 and 2, arguing that it was liable to be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption for filing annexures and directed notice to be issued to the respondents.
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited v.Government of India
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to call for the records of the Government of India concerning two specific patent applications (Nos. 211904 and 196432) and quash the related order dated 04.12.2017. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the prayer had become infructuous.
Inreco Entertainment Private Limited v.M/S. Nav Records Private Limited (Nupur Audio)
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by Inreco Entertainment Private Limited against M/S. Nav Records Private Limited. The court granted necessary procedural leaves and dispensed with certain requirements due to the urgency pleaded in the case.
Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt ltd. v.Shivashankar
The plaintiff, engaged in manufacturing tobacco products under the trademark HANSCHAAP, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were dishonestly adopting and using identical/deceptively similar trademarks (HANS and HANSVENBA) on their impugned goods. The court found the defendants guilty of infringement, passing off, dilution, and copyright violation.
XY LLC v.The Asst .Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter in April 2023.
Battelle Memorial Institute v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties and file a report before proceeding with the case. Liberty was also granted for either party to apply for an early hearing.
JFE Steel Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs and Anr.
The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the case in March 2023.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General Of Patents and Designs And Anr.
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
JW Pharmaceutical Corporation (Formerly Choongwae Pharma Corporation) v.Controller General of Patent and Designs and Anr
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
Prasad v.The Controller Of Patents and Design, Kolkata and Anr
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
Thomson Licensing S.A v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties before the returnable date and file a report.
Tata Global Beverages Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The Calcutta High Court received the matter (OA/11/2016/PT/KOL) on transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Department to issue notices and file a report.
Usg Interiors Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court noted that no counsel appeared and directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices before setting a returnable date.
Asha Nutrition Sciences Inc v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
Kalpesh Manubhai Ramoliya v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application seeking direction for the expeditious disposal of proceedings for cancellation of a registered design (No. 324986-017). The petitioner contended that despite filing the cancellation application in November 2021, the Controller had failed to proceed with the hearing, causing undue prejudice and loss.
Kalpesh Manubhai Ramoliya v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application seeking a direction from the Calcutta High Court for the expeditious disposal of proceedings related to the cancellation of registered design no. 324986-016. The petitioner contended that despite filing the cancellation request in November 2021, the Controller had failed to proceed with the hearing, causing undue prejudice and loss.
P.Ponnuchamy v.M/s.UTV Motion Pictures
This appeal challenged an order that disallowed the plaintiff from amending his plaint to include claims for royalty and account of profits related to the movie 'Thandavam'. The court dismissed the appeal, finding merit in the respondent's argument regarding the significant delay (nine years) in seeking these amendments. The judgment emphasized that courts must consider all facts and circumstances when exercising discretion on amendment applications.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi Public School Society filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a specific copyright registration held by its subsidiary, Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the impugned copyright was an exact replica of the Petitioner's original copyrights and if the Respondent had the right to hold such a registration. The Court found that the rival copyrights were nearly identical and that the Petitioner's rights predated the challenged registration. Furthermore, the court noted a prior decree restraining the Respondent from using similar marks.
Viacyte Inc v.Controller Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark and Anr.
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
The Regents of the University of California and Anr v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Anr
This Original Application (OA) was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for hearing.
Indena S.P.A. v.Controller General Pf Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This case involves Indena S.P.A. appealing a matter previously handled by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court's Commercial Division. The court directed that notices be issued to both parties and a report filed before the returnable date, setting the next hearing for March 6, 2023.
Viacyte Inc. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
This case involves Viacyte Inc. challenging a decision or proceeding before the Controller General of Patents. The matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued directions for the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report, setting the next hearing date.
Indian Institute Of Science (Oa ...) v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for further hearing.
Binyarco Llc v.The Controller Patents And Designs And Ors.
The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Sasol Technology (Pty.) Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
This judgment records the transfer of a patent appeal matter (OA/8/2018/PT/KOL) from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court, following the implementation of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
FLOW INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for hearing.
Honeywell International Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, which had declined its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the decline order was non-reasoned and inconsistent with previous judicial decisions. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties to file detailed submissions, brief notes, and relevant documentation before proceeding with the appeal.
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.