Patent Cases

7,002 decisions across India · US PTAB · European UPC

India 2,823 US PTAB 2,587 European UPC 1,592

Page 229 of 234

patent remanded · Dec 26, 2006

Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi · null

The appellant, IFFCO, challenged the demand for service tax on payments made to HALDOR TOPSOE of Denmark. The dispute centered on whether the payment was for taxable consulting engineer services or merely for the licensing of 'know-how' and technical information. The Tribunal held that since the agreement was composite, the consideration must be bifurcated, with only the portion related to technical assistance being subject to service tax.
patent mixed · Dec 20, 2006

Aia Engineering Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Anr.

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(1)257

Aia Engineering Ltd. challenged Patent No. 197257, arguing that substantive changes were made to its claims through amendments disguised as clerical errors. The initial review application was rejected by the Assistant Controller citing procedural flaws and lack of locus standi. However, the High Court intervened, finding fatal errors in the dismissal order due to violation of natural justice principles. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh adjudication on merits.
patent interim order · Nov 7, 2006

Jcb India Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Service Tax

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi · 2006(110)ECC478

Jcb India Ltd. appealed an order from the Commissioner of Service Tax demanding significant amounts of service tax and penalties, arguing that the transaction was a transfer of technical know-how, not a rendering of services. The Tribunal examined the agreement which granted a license under patents and know-how for manufacturing licensed products.
patent mixed · Nov 7, 2006

The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(1)58

This case involved a composite suit filed by The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. against Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal, alleging infringement of trademarks, designs, and copyrights related to ceiling fans sold in the Middle East. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that since the infringing goods were manufactured and exported outside India, the Delhi High Court lacked competence for trademark and design claims. The court ultimately held that while it had jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim, it did not possess the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit concerning trademarks, designs, or passing off.
patent defendant favorable · Oct 14, 2006

Novartis Ag. v.Cipla Ltd.

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · null

Cipla Ltd. opposed Novartis AG's patent application for a new crystal form of imatinib mesylate. The IPAB found that the subject matter was merely a new form of a known substance without significant enhancement in efficacy, thus failing Section 3(d). Furthermore, the court disqualified the application due to improper claiming of Swiss priority.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 6, 2006

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v.Mr. G. Choudhary And Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS (OS) No. 1602/2006 / IA No. 9115/2006

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Samsung Electronics against its distributors regarding the sale of 'grey market' ink cartridges/toners. Although the goods were genuine, they were imported outside India and did not conform to Indian market standards, leading to concerns about unauthorized distribution. The court recognized the risk of irreparable loss and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect, seize, and audit the inventory at the defendants' premises to prevent evidence destruction.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 3, 2006

Dhanpat Seth And Ors. v.Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh High Court · Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005 (O.M.P.)

The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction against the respondent, alleging infringement of Patent No. 195917 for an agricultural hauling device. The court examined the claims and found that the patented device was merely an imitation of the traditional 'Kilta', lacking novelty or inventive step as per Section 2(j) of the Patents Act.
patent defendant favorable · Jul 13, 2006

Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.Mr. Anant Kanoi And Ors.

Gujarat High Court · Civil Suit No. 4 of 2005

Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. sued M/s Techfab India (Defendant No. 1) alleging infringement of their patent for a synthetic rope gabion and sought permanent injunction and damages. The defendants argued that the invention was prior art and should be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 29, 2006

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v.S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi · ITA No. 4517/Del/2005, ITA No. 4518/Del/2005

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deductions under Section 80-O. The dispute centered on whether the assessee company, M/s S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd., was the rightful owner of patents and designs used to generate royalty income, or if they belonged solely to its Managing Director, Shri Rakesh Goel. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that the company was the beneficial owner.
patent defendant favorable · May 24, 2006

American Express Bank Ltd. v.Ms. Priya Puri

Delhi High Court · (2006)IIILLJ540DEL

This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute between American Express Bank Ltd. and its former head of wealth management, Ms. Priya Puri. The plaintiff had sought an injunction restraining the defendant from using or disclosing confidential customer information and trade secrets related to the bank’s Wealth View program after her departure. The court ultimately vacated the interim order, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case. The judgment emphasized that restricting an employee's legal right to change employment based on general confidentiality claims is unduly restrictive.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 1, 2006

Saranya Zaveri And Anr. v.Kamadon Academy P. Ltd.

Kerala High Court · O.S. No. 23 of 2005

The writ petition challenged the lower court's refusal to accept objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Kamadon Academy P. Ltd., sought a declaration of exclusive ownership over the 'Melchizedek method of meditation technique.' The High Court found that since the company was incorporated and conducted business outside Ernakulam, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
patent remanded · Feb 2, 2006

Glaxo Smith Kline Plc And Ors. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And ...

Calcutta High Court · 2006(3)CHN577

Glaxo Smith Kline challenged the rejection of their application for exclusive marketing rights. The core dispute revolved around whether the Controller was legally obligated to consider the examiner's report when making the final decision under Section 24A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision based on the law existing at the time of the initial rejection.
patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 2, 2006

Hindustan Lever Limited v.Cavin Kare Limited And Ors.

Calcutta High Court

The petitioner (Hindustan Lever Limited) filed contempt applications alleging that the respondents (Cavin Kare Limited and Ors.) willfully breached an undertaking recorded during a prior compromise regarding Patent No. 169917. The undertaking prohibited the manufacture and marketing of fairness cream using Silicone compound in combination with specific ingredients covered by the patent. After considering conflicting reports, the Court found the breach deliberate and wilful.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 27, 2006

Tractors And Farm Equipment Ltd. v.Green Field Farm Equipments Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · O.A. No. 18 of 2005; O.A. No. 19 of 2005 (in C.S. No. 20 of 2005)

The plaintiff filed two Original Applications seeking interim injunctions against the respondents. O.A. No. 18 sought to restrain the manufacture and sale of tractors (like Maharaja 3300) that substantially imitated the plaintiff's Hunter Tractor design, while O.A. No. 19 aimed to prevent the exploitation of confidential information and technical data related to the Hunter tractor project. The court found prima facie evidence of copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality in favor of the plaintiff.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 25, 2006

Novartis Ag v.Cancer Patients Aid Association.

Trademark Tribunal · 1602/MAS/1998

The opposition was filed against Novartis AG's patent application for a specific crystalline form (ß-crystal) of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not meet the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d), leading to the refusal of the patent application.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 25, 2006

Novartis Ag v.Hetero Drugs Limited

Trademark Tribunal · 1602/MAS/1998 (Application No.)

Novartis AG applied for a patent on the ß-crystal form of imatinib mesylate. Hetero Drugs Limited opposed the application, arguing that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not meet the enhanced efficacy criteria under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Tribunal agreed with the opposition, finding that the subject matter was a new form of a known substance without significant improvement in efficacy.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 25, 2006

Novartis Ag v.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Trademark Tribunal · 1602/MAS/1998 (Application No.)

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., on behalf of Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, opposed Novartis AG's patent application for a specific crystalline form (ß-crystal) of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not demonstrate enhanced efficacy as required under Section 3(d), leading to the refusal of the patent.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 25, 2006

Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Ltd.

Trademark Tribunal · 1602/MAS/1998 (Application No.)

Natco Pharma Ltd. opposed the patent application filed by Novartis Ag for a specific crystalline form of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was anticipated by prior art and did not meet the criteria for enhanced efficacy under Section 3(d). Consequently, the application was refused.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 25, 2006

Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd.

Trademark Tribunal · 1602/MAS/1998

Cipla Ltd. opposed Novartis Ag's patent application for the ß-crystal form of imatinib mesylate. The Tribunal found that the invention was merely a new form of a known substance and did not demonstrate significant enhancement in efficacy as required under Section 3(d). Furthermore, the application was disqualified for wrongly claiming priority.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 13, 2006

Microfibres Inc v.Girdhar And Co. And Ors.

Delhi High Court · null

Microfibres Inc sued Girdhar And Co. for alleged infringement of its copyrighted artistic works on upholstery fabrics and for passing off. The defendants argued that these features were merely textile designs, not protected artistic works, and thus required registration under the Designs Act.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 3, 2006

Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited v.United Phosphorus Limited And Anr.

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · O.P. No. 1/2005

The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking revocation and interim suspension of Patent No. 185229. The respondent argued that since a related suit was already pending before the District Court, Indore, and a restraint order had been obtained there, conflicting orders could not be passed. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim suspension.
patent defendant favorable · Dec 15, 2005

M/s. Dhodha House v.S.K. Maingi

Supreme Court of India · Appeal (civil) 6248 of 1997 / Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1999

The Supreme Court addressed two appeals concerning intellectual property rights. In one case (Dhodha House), the appeal regarding trademark and copyright infringement was dismissed. In another case (Patel Field Marshal), the court allowed the appeal, ruling on jurisdictional issues related to composite suits involving both trade mark and copyright.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 25, 2005

Wockhardt Limited v.Hetero Drugs Limited

Madras High Court · O.S.A.No.232 of 2005 and O.S.A. No. 233 and 234 OF 2005

Wockhardt Limited, holding a Process Patent and Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) for Nadifloxacin 1% Cream, filed suit against Hetero Drugs Limited and others alleging patent infringement. The lower court had previously vacated an interim injunction granted to Wockhardt. This Division Bench set aside the single judge's order, finding that Wockhardt was entitled to an injunction due to a prima facie case and the risk of irreparable injury.
patent defendant favorable · Nov 24, 2005

International Tractors Ltd. v.Punjab Tractors Ltd.

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No. 858/1999 (referenced)

International Tractors Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Punjab Tractors Ltd. for infringing copyright and breaching exclusive license rights regarding tractor designs and know-how. The plaintiff subsequently sought to amend the plaint to include claims related to confidential information/trade secrets, expanding the scope of protection to 20 HP tractors based on subsequent assignment deeds.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 20, 2005

V.V. Sivaram And Ors. v.Foseco India Limited

Karnataka High Court · null

The plaintiff, holding patents for 'Turbostop,' a specialized contoured impact pad used in steel plants, sought an injunction against the defendants (former employees and associated entities). The dispute centered on whether the defendants were manufacturing and marketing a product identical to Turbostop using confidential know-how obtained during their employment.
patent defendant favorable · Sep 8, 2005

Wockhardt Ltd. v.Hetero Drugs Ltd. And Ors.

Madras High Court · O.A. NO. 544 of 2005 (in C.S. No. 456 of 2005)

Wockhardt Ltd. filed Original Applications seeking an ad-interim injunction against Hetero Drugs Ltd. and others for infringing Patent No. 188847, Patent No. 188347, and EMR No. EMR/1/03 related to Nadifloxacin 1% cream (NADIDERM). The Madras High Court ultimately vacated the interim injunction, finding that the respondent had a valid manufacturing license based on US and Japan patents, and the challenge to this license was still pending before the Delhi High Court.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 20, 2005

Pfizer Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai · null

The appellant (a medicament manufacturer) entered into an agreement with Pfizer Inc. to receive technical know-how and use patented technology for manufacturing pharmaceuticals. The Department levied Service Tax on payments made to Pfizer, classifying it as 'engineering consultancy'. The Tribunal ruled that since the transaction was a license/transfer of intellectual property know-how, not professional engineering advice, the levy of Service Tax was unwarranted.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 22, 2005

N/A v.N/A

Lok Sabha Debates · Lok Sabha Debates (Combined Discussion)

The Lok Sabha debated the Patents (Amendment) Bill, 2005, which sought to introduce product patents. Opposition members strongly argued that this change would lead to exorbitant drug prices, making essential medicines inaccessible to the common man, thereby violating the fundamental right to health under Article 21. Despite these concerns, the Minister of Commerce and Industry successfully moved the motion, and the Bill was ultimately passed by the House.
patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 18, 2005

The Government of India v.Concerned Citizens/Pharmaceutical Industry Stakeholders

Lok Sabha Debates

The debate centered on the introduction of a Bill to further amend the Patents Act, 1970. Opponents argued that the amendment would compromise India's strong generic drug industry and restrict public access to affordable life-saving medicines. The Speaker ultimately allowed the motion for introducing the Bill to be adopted.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 6, 2005

Siemens Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Customs

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai · 2005(99)ECC449

Siemens Ltd. challenged the Customs Department's order which held that lump-sum payments related to technical know-how and royalty for manufacturing products in India were includible in the assessable value. The Tribunal ruled that such payments, when tied to indigenous manufacture using technical assistance, should not be included in the import valuation.
1 •••228229230•••234
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 →