Patent Cases

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

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

Page 132 of 433

patent defendant favorable · Aug 18, 2016

Controller Of Patents & Designs v.Deputy Registrar, Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Madras High Court · W.P. No.21392 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

The Controller of Patents & Designs challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had allowed the appeal of respondents against the rejection of a patent application. The dispute centered on whether the Controller failed to exercise proper discretion, specifically concerning the insufficient fee paid for all claims in the application.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 8, 2016

M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Madras High Court · C.S.No.460 of 2016

The suit was filed by M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. seeking a declaration that its cosmetic composition did not infringe Patent No.169917 and requesting a permanent injunction against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The court found that the subject patent had already expired in 2009, rendering the claims of infringement and the request for an injunction moot.
patent mixed · Aug 3, 2016

M/S Rspl Limited v.Mukesh Sharma & Anr

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) 145/2016

This appeal challenged a single judge's decision that dismissed an IP suit based on lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant, M/S Rspl Limited, had filed the suit under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act seeking injunction against alleged infringement and passing off by the respondents using the name 'GHARI TRADEMARK COMPANY'. The High Court Division Bench overturned the single judge's ruling, affirming that the court has jurisdiction given the plaintiff's corporate office and business activities within Delhi.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 27, 2016

Merus N.V v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · (T) CMA (PT) No.185 of 2023

Merus N.V appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 467/CHENP/2011 by the Assistant Controller, which had been based on non-patentability grounds (Section 3(i) and 3(j)). The appellant argued that the amendments were permissible as they merely refined the claim to nucleic acid molecules while retaining the core invention. The High Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the scope of amendments.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 22, 2016

Chambal Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd v.C.C.E., Jaipur I

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · Service Tax Appeal No. 1037 of 2010

The appellant, engaged in fertilizer manufacturing, was assessed service tax on agreements with foreign service providers for design and consultancy services. The Department argued these fell under IPR services. The Tribunal ruled that since the technical know-how and engineering designs were not recognized as IPR under any Indian law at the time of the agreement, there was no taxable IPR service.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 21, 2016

M/S Impact Metals Ltd., Bollaram v.M/S Msr India Ltd., Hyderabad

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1494 of 2016

The Civil Revision Petition arose from a lower court's dismissal of an application seeking arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents sought permanent injunction and damages based on alleged infringement of proprietary technology, designs, trade secrets, and trademarks. The Court held that the entire dispute was arbitrable under the Manufacturing Agreement.
patent defendant favorable · Jul 21, 2016

Dart Industries Inc & Anr. v.Techno Plast & Ors.

Delhi High Court · FAO (OS) 326/2007

Dart Industries Inc, through its licensee Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement of their proprietary designs and copyrights related to the popular 'Tupperware' storage containers. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants were copying these unique designs, leading to confusion in the market. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead and prove the distinctiveness of the product shape for trademark purposes, thereby lacking prima facie strength in their claims regarding design protection, copyright infringement, and passing off.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 6, 2016

Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited

Madras High Court · C.S.No.247 of 2016

Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The defendant submitted that it had stopped manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' in November 2015 due to health hazards associated with Nitrobenzene. The court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against the defendant.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 6, 2016

Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited

Madras High Court · C.S.No.247 of 2016

Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed suit against SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The court granted permanent injunctions in favor of the plaintiff, provided that the defendant was not manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' from November 2015 onwards.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 28, 2016

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited

Bombay High Court · NMS 191192-193-665

The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders issued in a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent for explosion and fire detection technology.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 28, 2016

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited

Bombay High Court · NMS 191192-193-665

The petitioner (CTR) filed four notices of motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit concerning explosion and fire detection technology for transformers. The court examined these 'contempt motions' but ultimately dismissed all four applications.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 28, 2016

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited

Bombay High Court · NMS 191192-193-665

The petitioner, CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd., filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent, Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited, was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt motions,' noting they were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding the original infringement finding.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 28, 2016

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited

Bombay High Court · NMS 191192-193-665

The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent on explosion and fire detection technology for transformers.
patent remanded · Jun 23, 2016

Kubota Corporation v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · (T) CMA (PT) No.34 of 2023

Kubota Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2342/CHE/2008), which concerned an 'operation parameter display system for working vehicle fitted with working implement'. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider the technical advancement over prior art and incorrectly applied Section 3(k).
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 15, 2016

Manugraph India Limited v.Simarq Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Bombay High Court · 917-NMSL94-13 & 918-NMS1180-14-F.DOC (Suit No. 516 of 2013 and Suit No. 632 of 2014)

This Bombay High Court judgment addressed preliminary issues concerning jurisdiction in two separate suits involving intellectual property rights. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action arose outside its local limits, citing precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court clarified the jurisdictional regimes under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, emphasizing that while plaintiffs have options to file suit, they cannot abuse these provisions by filing in a remote location lacking both defendants and a cause of action. Consequently, the court held that it possessed jurisdiction over both suits.
patent interim order · Jun 10, 2016

Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No. 764/2015

The court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking procedural reliefs, including a fresh trial schedule and permission to examine additional witnesses. The case involves patent infringement allegations concerning mobile radio communication technology and questions regarding the FRAND status of the patents.
patent plaintiff favorable ★ Landmark · Jun 10, 2016

Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Lava International Ltd

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.764/2015

Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Lava International Ltd for alleged infringement of its patented technologies. The core dispute revolved around Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G telecommunications standards used in mobile devices. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of infringement. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Lava from manufacturing or selling the infringing products, while dismissing a counter-application filed by the defendant.
patent dismissed · Jun 6, 2016

Akb Jagannath Nag v.Union Of India & Ors.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · M.A.T. 359 of 2016

Akb Jagannath Nag challenged an order from the Controllers of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that subsequent approval under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, should interfere with the impugned order. The court considered this new development but found it necessary for the appellant to approach the Single Judge for review or proceed via appeal.
patent dismissed · May 30, 2016

Teva Api India Pvt. Ltd. v.Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM) 34/2016

The respondents sued the appellants alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 209816 for Sitagliptin. The appellants challenged the interim injunction, claiming their manufacturing and exports were solely for Research & Development (R&D) and obtaining global regulatory approvals before the patent expiry in 2022. The court dismissed the appeal but directed the parties to complete pleadings.
patent mixed · May 20, 2016

Shomenath Roy Chowdhury v.Eskag Pharma Private Limited

Calcutta High Court · GA No.1511 of 2016

This case involves a dispute over a patent held by Shomenath Roy Chowdhury for a therapeutic composition used in wound healing, marketed as 'Dresin'. The petitioner alleged that Eskag Pharma Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a similar product under the name 'Sufrate TP', constituting infringement. While the petitioner sought an immediate injunction, the court recognized the need to hear the defense, which primarily argued that the ingredients were well-known in the medicinal field. Consequently, instead of granting an outright ban, the Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the respondent's stock.
patent pending · May 16, 2016

Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No. 764/2015

The plaintiff (Ericsson) filed a suit for infringement of registered patents against the defendant (Lava International). The court, following directions from the Supreme Court to expedite the trial, addressed an application by the defendant seeking to amend the witness list and change the trial schedule due to the unavailability of expert witnesses. The court granted a conditional adjournment.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 3, 2016

Chandra Sekar v.The Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · W.P.Nos.12620 & 12621 of 2017

Chandra Sekar challenged orders dismissing his two patent applications (Nos. 8846/CHENP/2011 and 8907/CHENP/2011) because the request for examination was filed late. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to calendaring errors and negligence on the part of the Indian agent, not his own.
patent mixed · Apr 25, 2016

Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.3284/2015

Genentech Inc. and its affiliates filed suit against the Drugs Controller General of India and others, challenging the approval granted for TrastuRel, a purported biosimilar version of their drug Trastuzumab. The plaintiffs contended that TrastuRel had not undergone adequate testing as required under Indian law before being launched. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining the defendant from marketing the product without proper trials while setting conditions for future regulatory approval.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 22, 2016

M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.

Supreme Court of India · CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4359-4360 OF 2016

The dispute arose from an arbitration award requiring M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation (appellant) to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests of Indian Patents No. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008 to M/S Euro Apex B.V. (respondent). The respondent challenged the execution, but the Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the transfer deed as per the modified request from the respondent themselves.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 22, 2016

M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders · Civil Appeal Nos. 4359-4360 of 2016

This appeal concerned the enforcement of a PFA from an arbitration award, which mandated the respondent to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests in specific Indian Patents (Nos. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008) to the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the required deed of transfer, thereby fulfilling its obligation under the PFA.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 22, 2016

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

Delhi High Court · IA 3074/2015 in CS(OS) 3775/2014

Ericsson sued Xiaomi for infringing several patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technology used in mobile devices. The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of a prior interim injunction by alleging concealment of material facts. The court found that Ericsson failed to disclose its agreement with Qualcomm regarding CDMA applications, leading to the vacation of the interim order concerning two specific patents.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 30, 2016

Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Competition Commission Of India

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 464/2014 & 1006/2014

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson challenged the orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which had initiated investigations based on complaints from Micromax and Intex. The core dispute revolved around whether the CCI possessed jurisdiction to examine claims related to royalty payments for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Ericsson argued that patent-related royalty issues fall exclusively under the Patents Act, 1970, not the Competition Act, 2002. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the jurisdictional boundaries of the CCI in this context.
patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 29, 2016

Wind World (India) Limited v.Enercon GmbH

Bombay High Court · ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.374 OF 2016

Wind World (India) Limited challenged an arbitral tribunal's order that directed them to produce documents and granted interim measures. The dispute arose from various agreements, including the Intellectual Property Licensing Agreement. The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it contrary to law.
patent dismissed · Mar 28, 2016

M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/S.Bajaj Auto Limited

Madras High Court · A.No.2647/2015 and A.No.4539/2015 in C.S.No.979 of 2007

The applications were filed by Bajaj Auto Limited (the defendant) seeking to eschew various documents marked as exhibits in a suit where TVS Motor Company Limited (the plaintiff) claimed non-infringement of Patent No. 195904. The court held that most objections regarding document admissibility could be deferred until the time of final arguments, except for specific objections concerning photocopies and newspaper clippings.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 23, 2016

Ritika Private Limited v.Biba Apparels Private Limited

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.182/2011

Ritika Private Limited filed a suit against Biba Apparels Private Limited claiming infringement of copyright and violation of trade secrets related to its garment designs sold under the RITU KUMAR brand. The plaintiff asserted originality in its sketches and drawings, which were adapted for various garments. However, the court found that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as the designs were capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, but had not been so registered.
1 •••131132133•••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 →