Patent Cases

12,989 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,823 European UPC 1,592 US PTAB 8,574

Page 130 of 433

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 21, 2018

Upl Limited v.Pradeep Sharma & Anr

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 556/2017

Upl Limited filed a suit claiming infringement of three patents related to a stable synergistic herbicidal composition (Sulfosulfuron + Metsulfuron Methyl WG). The defendants challenged the validity of these patents. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
patent dismissed · Feb 20, 2018

M/s.Power Soaps Limited v.M/s. C M Detergent

Madras High Court · C.S.No.534 of 2010

M/s. Power Soaps Limited filed a suit against M/s. C M Detergent alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('DK' and 'POWER') and copyright violation concerning the use of deceptively similar marks on detergent wrappers. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and accounts of profits. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the suit, leading the court to dismiss the case.
patent defendant favorable · Feb 16, 2018

Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.Union Of India And Anr.

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 1469/2018

The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to restore its Indian Patent Application (No. 3584/DELNP/2015) for examination, which had been treated as abandoned due to failure to file the request within the prescribed time limit. The court examined the mandatory nature of the statutory deadlines and ruled against the petitioner's plea for restoration.
patent remanded · Jan 29, 2018

Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 1683/2016

The dispute involved a suit for patent infringement filed by Unilin Beheer B.V. against Balaji Action Buildwell. The defendant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that they had initiated revocation proceedings before the IPAB under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court addressed the issue of concurrent jurisdiction and granted liberty to the defendant to withdraw the IPAB proceedings and file a Counter-Claim in the suit.
patent mixed · Jan 24, 2018

Lens. Com, Inc. v.Ju J Friend International

Delhi High Court · OMP(COMM) 223/2016

The Delhi High Court reviewed an arbitration award concerning a domain name dispute under NIXI's INDRP. The court struck down the arbitrary direction to confiscate the disputed domain name, ruling that such power was outside the scope of the policy. However, the court clarified that merely cancelling the registration does not automatically grant ownership to the petitioner; the complainant must independently prove their rights in the generic term 'lens'.
patent dismissed · Dec 20, 2017

J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr. v.Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 2934/2011

The plaintiffs sued the defendant alleging imminent infringement of copyrights in component drawings and registered designs related to their 3DX Backhoe Loader. The defendant filed applications seeking dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it lacked a cause of action, particularly after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew an injunction order. The court dismissed the defendant's applications, noting that the issues required a full trial.
patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 19, 2017

M/S.Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 1315/2016

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd against Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors, finding that the defendants infringed upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The court held that the defendant's use of similar trademarks and packaging for liver tonic preparations amounted to both copyright infringement and passing off. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing their infringing activities.
patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 15, 2017

Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Vinod Jadhav

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 3132/2014

Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp sought confirmation of an existing ex parte ad interim injunction against Vinod Jadhav and others, alleging that they were infringing on their registered patent for the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs established that they held a valid patent (No. 209816) and had previously secured a permanent injunction in a related suit. The court found that the plaintiffs clearly made out a prima facie case and confirmed the interim order, noting the defendants' attempts to delay the matter.
patent dismissed · Dec 13, 2017

M/s.Aloha India v.Brilliant Academy

Madras High Court · C.S.No.25 of 2011

M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit against Brilliant Academy alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'ALOHA' and copyright violation concerning its education books and study materials. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages for passing off, and surrender of infringing stock. Although the suit qualified to be heard by the Commercial Division under relevant statutes, the plaintiff subsequently requested withdrawal.
patent defendant favorable · Nov 20, 2017

Munish Kumar Singla Trading As: Chakshu Food Products v.Jollibee Foods Corporation

Delhi High Court · FAO No. 458/2017

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Chakshu Food Products, setting aside a restrictive ex-parte injunction granted against it by the trial court. The core issue was whether Jollibee Foods Corporation could enforce its trademark and copyright rights over a bee image when it had not commenced business in India despite having registered the marks since 2005. The Court ruled that without actual use or entry into the Indian market, an ex-parte injunction against a local competitor is unwarranted, emphasizing principles from cases like Milmet Oftho Industries.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 14, 2017

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 1236/2013 & I.As. 16133/2013, 280/2014 AND 9968/2013

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 7, 2017

Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 4083/2014

Vifor (International) Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr. for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers a novel water soluble iron carbohydrate complex used for intravenous treatment of iron deficiency. The court found that the defendants were violating the plaintiff's registered patent rights.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 27, 2017

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Mr. Munish Thakur

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 2744/2015

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Munish Thakur for infringing Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin. The court found that the defendant's product, GLIPSIT-M1, contained Sitagliptin and thus infringed the patent.
patent interim order · Oct 24, 2017

Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 434/2016

The plaintiff, Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for patent infringement against Xiaomi Technology. The current application sought the constitution of a confidential club to allow filing of highly sensitive patent licensing agreements necessary for determining FRAND issues.
patent mixed · Oct 13, 2017

Lifestyle Equities CV v.QDSeatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · O.S.A.Nos.216 and 249 of 2017

This Madras High Court judgment addresses intra-court appeals concerning a business relationship between Lifestyle Equities CV (owner of the 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark) and QDS entities. The core dispute revolved around an agreement governing the organization and support of the BHPC brand in apparel, leading to litigation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court ultimately allowed the appeal filed by Lifestyle while dismissing the counter-appeal by QDS, affirming that the disputes are arbitrable.
patent defendant favorable · Oct 12, 2017

Saregama India Limited v.Eros Digital Fz Llc

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 625/2017 (IA No.10917/2017)

Saregama India Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against Eros Digital Fz Llc, alleging copyright infringement and default payments following the expiry of a content license agreement. The core legal battle revolved around whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court examined Clause 29 of the License Agreement, which explicitly mandated that disputes arising from the contract must be heard exclusively by the High Court of Calcutta.
patent remanded · Oct 12, 2017

Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co v.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court · RFA (OS)(COMM) 9/2017

The appeal challenged a decree of permanent injunction granted in favor of Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co. The core dispute involved alleged infringement of Patent No. 247301 concerning the 'Process for Preparing Amoxicilin Trihydrate'. The court set aside the previous order, recognizing that questions regarding territorial jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction against foreign manufacturing needed further examination.
patent defendant favorable · Sep 25, 2017

Michele Caboni v.Union Of India And Anr.

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 8619/2017

The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of certain sections and rules of the Patents Act, 1970, primarily arguing that the rules did not provide an opportunity to be heard before rights were closed, and that no appeal was prescribed against orders under Rule 137. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the statutory provisions.
patent pending · Sep 15, 2017

CBZ Chemicals Ltd v.Kee Pharma Ltd

Delhi High Court · CO.PET. No.66/2013

CBZ Chemicals Ltd filed a petition against Kee Pharma Ltd claiming deprivation of USD 350,000 related to an agreement for the sale of a process design to manufacture Atorvastatin. The court admitted the petition but deferred the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator, giving the respondent one month to pay the due amount with interest.
patent remanded · Sep 14, 2017

Suru International Pvt. Ltd v.B.Braun Melsungen AG

Madras High Court · W.P.No.24502 of 2013

Suru International Pvt. Ltd filed a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner sought revocation of Patent No. 210062. The Madras High Court set aside the IPAB's order to the extent that it had remanded the matter back to the Controller General of Patents & Designs, directing the IPAB to decide the issue de novo.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 28, 2017

Bharatbhai Padmakant Raut v.Madhu Silica Pvt Ltd

Gujarat High Court · C/SCA/15331/2017

The respondents filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the petitioners' manufacturing and trade of various grades of silica was illegal, mala-fide, and void ab initio. The petitioners challenged this by seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing it was barred by law and lacked jurisdiction. The High Court rejected the petition, finding that there was a cause of action based on the alleged transfer of secret data.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 22, 2017

M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals v.Union Of India

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · W. P. 21548 (W) OF 2017

M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals challenged an order passed by the Controller of Patents, arguing that the authority failed to consider superior data regarding their improved product version. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the impugned order was statutorily appealable, the petitioner must utilize the available statutory remedy.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 18, 2017

K.Manivannan v.The Chairman Intellectual Property Appellate Board, The Controller of Patent & Designs, M.Mani

Madras High Court · W.P.No.11951 of 2011

The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 204322, granted to M.Mani (the third respondent), arguing that the invention was already publicly available or anticipated by his own earlier work. The petitioner sought revocation of the patent before the High Court.
patent remanded · Aug 17, 2017

M/S.Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd v.M/S.Ameya Laboratories Ltd

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · COM.T.A.No.3 of 2017 in/and COM.O.S.No.43 of 2017

The plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Patent No.265920 in the Commercial Court. Due to the defendant filing a counter-claim for revocation, the suit was transferred to the High Court. The core issue before the court was whether this transferred patent dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
patent settled · Aug 8, 2017

Kela Handloom & Co. v.Susanta Debnath

Madras High Court · C.S.No.569 of 2016

Kela Handloom & Co. filed a suit against Susanta Debnath and others, alleging infringement of their registered trademark 'ASMA' and associated artistic work in textile goods like lungies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Compromise reached between the parties.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 27, 2017

Glaxo Group Limited v.Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 1328/2016

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. The court found that the defendants were infringing on registered trademarks (ZINACEF, FORTAM) and common law rights (FORTAZ), as well as passing off the plaintiff's goods using similar packaging (trade dress/copyright). Given the multiple violations, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of ₹20 lakhs to Glaxo Group.
patent pending · Jul 20, 2017

Sarin Technology Limited v.Piyush Dantara & 2

Gujarat High Court · O/CS/3/2013

The court heard arguments regarding the framing of issues in a civil suit concerning patent infringement. The court accepted the suggested issues and framed them for further proceedings.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 10, 2017

Tryton Medical Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 195/2017

Tryton Medical Inc. challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to examine its National Phase Patent Application, which had been rejected due to a minor delay in filing. The petitioner argued that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously allowed the appeal and directed the Controller to proceed with examination. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, mandating compliance with the IPAB's orders.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 15, 2017

M/S. Munjal Showa Limited v.Commissioner Of Central Excise & St, Delhi (Gurgaon)

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · ST/610-613/2012-DB & ST/743/2012-DB

M/S. Munjal Showa Limited challenged demands for service tax levied on royalty payments made to M/s. Showa Corporation, Japan, concerning the transfer of technical know-how and IP rights (Patent, Utility model, Brand Service, Design, Trademark). The Tribunal ruled that since the relevant trademarks and designs were not registered in India under Indian law at the time, the services did not fall under IPR service as defined by the Finance Act, 1994. Furthermore, since the agreement was executed before the levy came into force, the demand was unsustainable.
patent In favor of Plaintiff · Jun 14, 2017

Galatea Ltd v.Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation

Gujarat High Court

The petitioners allege infringement of their patent for a method of evaluating gemstones by the respondents, who are accused of secretly using the patented components in their machines and devices.
1 •••129130131•••433
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →