Software — India Patent Cases
146 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 5 · 146 total
Cashgrail Private Limited v.Blue Horizone Infotech Llp
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the suit filed by Cashgrail Private Limited against Blue Horizone Infotech LLP concerning alleged infringement of online games and trademarks. Cashgrail claims that the defendant's 'LUDO TOURNAMENT' replicates essential features of its proprietary skill-based games, such as 'Ludo Supreme League.' The court allowed the suit to proceed while ensuring the defendant receives an opportunity to respond before any interim orders are passed.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802). The rejection was based on alleged failures regarding proper method claim submission and procedural delays concerning Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds were untenable and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802) by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding Form-3 filing delay. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds for rejection were untenable and remanding the matter.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application. The rejection was based primarily on alleged failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding a delayed Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and procedural errors did not justify rejection, thus remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Microsoft Corporation v.Pcpatchers Technology Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning brand protection, the Delhi High Court directed various international Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to comply with an existing injunction. Microsoft Corporation sought permanent relief against entities allegedly violating its trademarks and copyrights through fraudulent activities using 'MICROSOFT' in domain names. The court granted a final opportunity for DNRs to provide necessary WHOIS details and suspend the infringing domains, warning that failure to comply within one week would lead to legal action by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Eicore Technologies filed a suit against Eexpedise Technologies alleging infringement of its software 'HealthBuzz' and misuse of confidential information by former employees who formed competing entities. The Plaintiffs sought interim injunctions restraining the Defendants from copying, publishing, or providing services related to their proprietary software. While the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants were infringing copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court recognized the highly technical nature of the dispute.
SAP SE v.ERP TRAINING INDIA & ORS.
SAP SE successfully secured a comprehensive interim injunction against ERP Training India and associated parties in the Delhi High Court. The court found prima facie evidence of trademark and copyright infringement related to unauthorized online SAP training courses. Consequently, the defendants were ordered to immediately deactivate websites, domains, email addresses, block specific IP access points, and freeze bank accounts linked to the infringing activities.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Canva Pty Ltd, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN 360726, which covers a system and method for creating and sharing interactive content. The Plaintiff argued that Canva's 'Present and Record' feature directly infringes the patented technology used in their product, 'My Show & Tell'. After analyzing the claims and evidence, the Delhi High Court found prima facie merit in the Plaintiff's case.
Oracle International Corporation v.Controller Of Patents
Oracle International Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order regarding the patentability of its application (3566/CHENP/2006). The appeal argued that the subject matter was eligible for patent protection and not excluded as a business method or computer program per se. However, the appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.
Tata Sky Limited (later Tata Play Limited) v.Linkedin Corporation And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sky against LinkedIn concerning unauthorized use of the 'TATA SKY' brand on user profiles. Recognizing the recurring nature of fake and infringing profiles, the court issued specific directions to LinkedIn. These directions mandate that LinkedIn publicly disclose its Grievance Officer details, relevant policies, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to handling such grievances under the IT Rules, aiming to establish an effective framework for redressal without requiring constant litigation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Zoai Founder
Microsoft Corporation challenged an arbitral award rendered under the INDRP concerning the domain name zoai.in, which had denied Microsoft's claim for transfer. The petitioner argued that the arbitrator was biased and that the decision was vitiated by procedural unfairness due to independent research conducted without providing materials to Microsoft. The Delhi High Court agreed with the petitioner on both grounds of bias and natural justice violation.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft challenged the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for a network authentication system under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, arguing that the invention provided a genuine technical solution to security problems. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection based on the flawed interpretation of 'computer program per se,' emphasizing that an algorithm should not be automatically excluded if it offers a tangible technical contribution. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for re-examination regarding novelty and inventive step.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed a matter before the Delhi High Court concerning an objection related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court heard arguments and directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to ensure the presence of a Controller for assistance on the next date.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application for a filtering user interface. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) as being a 'computer program per se'. The High Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that software can be patentable if it demonstrates a technical contribution and applying the updated CRI 2017 Guidelines.
Oneempower Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Oneempower Pte Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Transaction Reward System' (TRS), arguing that it possessed a technical effect and was not merely a business method. The Controller rejected the application, holding that TRS was fundamentally an administrative or organizational business solution implemented using standard technology.
Google Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for capturing panoramic images. The core contention was that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims under Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, leading to an unsustainable rejection order.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged the position taken by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court found the affidavit filed by the Respondent to be inadequate in reasoning regarding Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the court directed the Controller General to ensure specialized Controllers assist the court on the next hearing date.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs Patent Office
Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that its method claims were not patentable because they consisted of executable software instructions. The High Court set aside this refusal, citing judicial precedents, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appeal concerns the patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). The court heard arguments regarding the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent was given an opportunity to file an affidavit on whether the subject patent makes a technical contribution or effect.
M/S Map Systems v.M/S Informatic Publishing Limited
M/S Map Systems appealed against an interim order passed by the Commercial Court that confirmed an ex-parte temporary injunction against them. The plaintiff, M/S Informatic Publishing Limited, claimed that the defendants had misappropriated its proprietary remote access solution, 'RemotLog,' to create a competing product called 'MapMyAccess.' The Karnataka High Court found that the trial court's order was vague and lacked proper reasoning regarding the grant of injunction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the temporary injunction and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents that refused its Indian Patent Application (No. 5429/DELNP/2007) under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the cited prior art did not disclose the claimed invention.
Google Llc v.Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Google LLC against several defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were colluding to misuse the globally recognized 'GOOGLE' mark on various websites, falsely suggesting an association with the multinational tech giant. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting Google a permanent injunction, awarding damages of INR 10 lakhs, and directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to block the infringing domain name.
Pb Fintech Limited v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted significant interim relief in favor of Pb Fintech Limited against various parties accused of trademark infringement. The court impleaded new defendants and issued strict injunctions restraining them from using deceptively similar marks like 'POLICYBAZAAR' or 'PAISABAZAAR'. Furthermore, the judgment directed domain registrars (DNRs) to immediately suspend and block infringing domains, and mandated ISPs to prevent access to these websites. The court also ordered the temporary suspension of a bank account linked to one of the alleged infringers.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Google Llc
The Delhi High Court framed several key issues in the dispute between Winzo Games Private Limited and Google LLC regarding a warning displayed on Chrome Mobile Browser. The core questions revolve around whether this warning constitutes disparagement of WinZO's trademarks, amounts to trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, or violates contractual obligations. Both parties have been directed to file a joint schedule for recording evidence, signaling that the matter is moving into the substantive trial phase.
Aurorax Private Limited v.Bharatx Accelerator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Aurorax Private Limited against Bharatx Accelerator & Ors. The plaintiff, a leading fintech start-up, sought protection for its registered trademark 'BHARATX' which it has used since 2019. The court found that the defendants were using similar marks and domain names, causing market confusion, and consequently restrained them from further use of the infringing trademarks until the final hearing.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its application for patent (No. 3304/DEL/2005). The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits patents for computer programs. Microsoft argued that the reliance on outdated guidelines was incorrect and cited prior court views supporting patentability.
Pb Fintech Limited v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted significant interim relief in favor of Pb Fintech Limited against various parties accused of trademark infringement. The court impleaded new defendants and issued strict injunctions restraining them from using deceptively similar marks like 'POLICYBAZAAR' or 'PAISABAZAAR'. Furthermore, the judgment directed domain registrars (DNRs) to immediately suspend and block infringing domains, and mandated ISPs to prevent access to these websites. The court also ordered the temporary suspension of a bank account linked to one of the alleged infringers.
SAP SE v.SAB INFOTECH SOLUTION PVT LTD & ANR
The dispute between SAP SE and Sab Infotech Solution Pvt Ltd was resolved through a comprehensive settlement decree by the Delhi High Court. The core agreement mandates that while Sab Infotech can continue using the full trading name 'SAB INFOTECH,' they must not use the mark 'SAB' in isolation or deceptively similar to SAP's registered trademarks. Furthermore, Sab Infotech agreed to withdraw a specific trademark application related to their brand. This settlement allows both parties to move forward with defined usage parameters.
Apnatime Tech Private Limited And Anr. v.Anik Dev Nath And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Apnatime Tech Private Limited against the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were passing off their services using a deceptively similar mark ('APNA JOBS') and infringing on their copyrighted website layout and user interface. Citing prima facie evidence, the court restrained the defendants from using the disputed mark and artistic works, while also directing domain name suspension and blocking to prevent further consumer confusion and irreparable harm.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to file additional documents in a commercial suit against Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which concerned alleged infringement of its software 'HealthBuzz' and misuse of trade secrets. The Plaintiffs sought to introduce various financial statements, correspondence, and domain details related to the Defendants' competing entities. However, the Delhi High Court scrutinized the request under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, emphasizing the need for speedy disposal.
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.