Patent Cases

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

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

Page 233 of 234

patent defendant favorable · Jul 3, 1980

Income-Tax Officer And Ors. v.Shriram Bearings Ltd.

The Revenue challenged the High Court's decision regarding the taxability of payments made by Shriram Bearings Ltd. (an Indian company) to Nippon Soike Kabushiki Kaisha (N.S.K., a Japanese non-resident) for the purchase of trade secrets and technical know-how related to roller bearings. The court ruled that the transaction of selling trade secrets alone did not establish a 'business connection' in India, thus holding the payment was not taxable.

patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 31, 1979

National Research Development Corporation of India v.The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · null

The plaintiff, National Research Development Corporation of India, sought a temporary injunction against the defendants for infringing its Patent No. 138571 concerning TSIA. The defendants challenged the patent's validity and denied infringement. The court found that the plaintiff was the rightful assignee and that the defendants were aware of the patent and had negotiated for a license, thus confirming the injunction.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 1979

J.N. Electricals (India) v.President Electricals

Delhi High Court

J.N. Electricals sued President Electricals for infringing their registered design of an electric toaster, passing off, and copyright piracy of their promotional pamphlets. The court found that the defendant's toaster was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered design, and the defendants had outrightly copied the plaintiffs' pamphlet word-for-word.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 13, 1978

Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v.Hindustan Metal Industries

Supreme Court of India · Civil Appeal Nos. 1630-1631 of 1969

Hindustan Metal Industries obtained a patent for an improved method/device for manufacturing utensils. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam challenged this patent, arguing it lacked novelty and inventive step. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the patented machine was merely a 'workshop improvement' based on old knowledge, rendering the patent invalid.

patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 14, 1978

R. Prakash v.Chowdhary Plastic Works

Delhi High Court · null

The plaintiff held Patent No. 125113 of 1970 for a method of producing printed film discs and viewers. The suit was filed alleging infringement, leading to an injunction being granted against the defendant. The court found that the defendant willfully disobeyed this injunction by continuing to manufacture and sell infringing goods.

patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 10, 1978

R. Prakash v.Chowdri Plastic Works

Delhi High Court · null

The plaintiff held Patent No. 125113 of 1970 for a method of producing a printed film disc and viewer. The plaintiff filed suit alleging infringement, leading to an injunction being granted against the defendant. Despite this order, the defendant continued manufacturing and selling infringing goods, leading to proceedings for disobedience.

patent defendant favorable · Aug 23, 1978

Aluminium Company Of America v.Joint Controller Of Patents & Designs

Calcutta High Court · null

The appellant filed an application for a patent relating to solid lobular Aluminium Chloride produced via desublimation. The Controller objected that the invention was not patentable under Section 5(b) because it involved a chemical process. The Calcutta High Court upheld this objection, ruling that since the substance is obtained through a larger chemical manufacturing process (chlorination of alumina), the final physical step of desublimation cannot be considered separately for patentability.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 6, 1978

Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v.Sarabhai M. Chemicals P. Ltd.

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission

The Commission initiated an inquiry into a 'sale of know-how' agreement between Sarabhai M. Chemicals P. Ltd. and E. Merck A.G., which was brought to its notice by Jayant Vitamins Ltd. The core dispute centered on Clause 9 of a subsequent agreement, which restricted the second respondent (E.M.) from manufacturing or selling certain 'LISTED ITEMS' in India.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 2, 1977

Shantilal Paramshankar Joshi v.Themis Distributors (P.) Limited

Madras High Court · CS. Nos. 67 of 1969 and 167 of 1971; O.S.A. Nos. 53 of 1975 and 51 of 1975; O.S.A. No. 82 of 1976

The plaintiff, a sole proprietor, claimed to be the inventor of a patented 'combined closure and dropper' device. He sued several defendants for infringing this patent. The court found that the plaintiff was the true and first inventor and ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding infringement claims, while also dismissing appeals related to costs.

patent defendant favorable · Jul 4, 1977

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs ...

Calcutta High Court

The appeal challenged an order passed by the Controller General regarding the settlement of terms for an interim license allowing manufacture of a patented catalyst. The patent covered a specific composition and process for steam reforming catalysts. The Calcutta High Court ultimately declined to interfere with the Controller's order, noting that the patent was nearing expiry.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 25, 1977

Raj Parkash v.Mangat Ram Chowdhry And Ors.

Delhi High Court · R.F.A. (CS) 2 of 1973

The plaintiff held a patent for a viewer using a medially cut positive 35mm film. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were infringing this patent by manufacturing and selling identical film strip viewers. Although the initial suit was dismissed, the appeal court upheld the validity of the patent and found infringement.

patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 28, 1976

C. Siddeswaran v.R. Shanmugham Pillai

Madras High Court

The appeal challenged a trial court judgment that granted injunction and damages against the defendant for infringing the plaintiff's patent on an automatic machine used for frying Bengal gram. The appellant argued that since the patent had lapsed, the relief of injunction and destruction order could not continue. The High Court affirmed the damages but set aside the injunction and the destruction order due to the lapse of the patent.

patent defendant favorable · May 28, 1975

Ram Narain Kher v.Ambassador Industries New Delhi And ...

Delhi High Court · null

The plaintiff sought an ad interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing his patent related to air coolers. The defendants contested the application by challenging the validity of the patent, arguing that it lacked novelty and was not adequately described in the claims. The court ultimately vacated the temporary injunction due to the dispute over the patent's validity.

patent defendant favorable · May 28, 1974

Poysha Industries Co. Ltd. v.Dy. Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court

Poysha Industries Co. Ltd. appealed against a decision regarding a patent application filed by Metal Box Company of India Ltd. The appeal focused on whether the claimed pil-ferproof container closure had been publicly used or known in India before the filing date. The court found that the appellants failed to establish prior public use, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

patent defendant favorable · May 3, 1974

Shining Industries And Anr. v.Shri Krishna Industries

Allahabad High Court · null

Shri Krishna Industries sued Shining Industries for infringing its patented lock design (Patent No. 99371). The appellants countered by challenging the validity of the patent, arguing that the respondent was not the true inventor and the mechanism was not novel. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, revoking the patent.

patent defendant favorable · Feb 8, 1974

Raytheon Company v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court

Raytheon Company appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 133687) for an 'Imaging System'. The refusal was based on the opinion of the Central Government, which held that the invention related to atomic energy and thus could not be patented under Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the direction of the Central Government is final and beyond challenge in an appeal under the Patents Act.

patent dismissed · Sep 14, 1973

Somabhai Ishwarbhai Bhagat v.Natwerlal Chhanalal And Co. And Ors.

Gujarat High Court · Regular Civil Suit No. 2348 of 1971 (Transferred)

The petitioner filed a civil suit alleging infringement of Patent No. 124131, which covered a roasting apparatus. The respondent counterclaimed seeking revocation of the patent. The court examined whether the suits and counterclaims were premature because they were filed before the official sealing date of the patent.

patent defendant favorable · Mar 27, 1973

Hindustan Sanitaryware And Industries Limited v.Neiveli Ceramics And Refractories Ltd.

Delhi High Court · null

Hindustan Sanitaryware (petitioner) filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of Patent No. 103411 held by Neiveli Ceramics (respondent). The core dispute revolved around whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to hear the revocation petition, and whether the proceedings should be stayed due to an existing infringement suit in Madras.

patent defendant favorable · Jul 28, 1972

National Research Development ... v.Bhupal Mining Works Etc.

Delhi High Court · Suit No. 394 of 1971 (Application under Section 34)

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of unpaid royalties related to the use of Patent No. 48667 (mica insulating bricks). The defendant filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a stay of the suit, arguing that disputes regarding royalty calculation and patent rights should be referred to arbitration. The court dismissed the application, finding no prior dispute existed and noting the defendants' failure to invoke the arbitration clause earlier.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 11, 1968

Farbewerke Hoechst v.Unichem Laboratories And Ors.

Bombay High Court

Farbewerke Hoechst sued Unichem Laboratories for infringing Patent No. 58716, which covered the manufacture of sulphonyl-ureas like Tolbutamide (marketed as Rastinon). The defendants claimed non-infringement and challenged the validity of the patent. The court found that the plaintiffs' patent was valid and granted an injunction against the defendants.

patent defendant favorable · Dec 1, 1964

V. Manioka Thevar v.Star Plough Works, Melur

Madras High Court · O. 8 No. 3 of 1964 (Appeal)

The petitioner filed suit alleging infringement of his patent for a specific pattern of plough. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that the pattern was not original but based on prior public knowledge and invention by the defendant. The High Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case due to serious doubts regarding the patent's validity and its recent nature.

patent defendant favorable · Feb 20, 1963

Farbenfebriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · AIR1963CAL433

The patentee, Farbenfebriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, appealed against the Controller's decision to grant compulsory licenses for two patents (Nos. 43678 and 43679) to Arlabs Private Limited. The petitioner sought a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution to appeal further to the Supreme Court.

patent defendant favorable · May 16, 1962

Laxmi Dutt Roop Chand v.Nankau And Ors.

Allahabad High Court

The plaintiff, a partnership firm that purchased Patent No. 42514 of 1950 from the original patentee, sued the defendants for infringing the patented process for manufacturing hollow wares. The defendants counter-claimed seeking revocation of the patent on grounds including lack of inventive step and prior use. The court ultimately found that the patent was not novel or useful, establishing the defendant's counterclaim.

patent remanded · Oct 13, 1961

Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v.Vendra Venkanna, Proprietor Of Jai Bharathi Cement Works

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · A.S. No. 140 of 1957

The appellant, Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd., filed suits alleging that defendants were infringing its trade marks ('Hume Pipes') and patent (No. 20709) related to cement concrete pipes. The court affirmed the injunction against trademark infringement but remanded the matter for a Commissioner to assess damages due to disputes over injury quantification.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 5, 1960

Upendra Nath Dass And Sons v.T.C. Martin

Calcutta High Court · null

The plaintiff (Upendra Nath Dass And Sons) filed a suit seeking an interim injunction against the defendant (T.C. Martin) for groundless threats related to Patent No. 63186, which covers crushing machines used in tea manufacturing. The plaintiffs argued that the patent was invalid and they were not infringing it. However, the court held that merely claiming the patent is invalid is insufficient; the plaintiff must unequivocally state that there has been no infringement of the patent.

patent defendant favorable · Aug 5, 1960

Mohd. Abdul Kereem v.M. Agaiah

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · L.P.A. No. 83 of 1959

The dispute originated from a trade mark infringement suit where the plaintiff's case was dismissed for default. The plaintiff sought review, which the trial judge allowed. The defendant appealed this decision to the High Court. The court ultimately held that an appeal against a review order granted on grounds outside the scope of Order 47 is incompetent.

patent defendant favorable · Jun 4, 1958

V.B. Mohammed Ibrahim v.Alfred Schafraneck And Ors.

Karnataka High Court · null

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages and injunction against defendants for manufacturing flower design chair seats, claiming patent rights. The court held that since the plaintiff was not registered as a patentee and had not followed the statutory procedure to register his title, he lacked the legal standing to file an infringement suit under Section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act. Furthermore, the court found that the actual invention was attributable only to defendants 1 and 2.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 26, 1958

K.L. Chaturvedi v.State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · null

The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Drugs Act, 1940, arguing that the amendment requiring mandatory disclosure of the true formula or list of ingredients for his proprietary medicine 'Germs Killer' infringed upon his right to protect his trade secret. The court upheld the amended provision, stating that the requirement was reasonable and aimed at preserving public health and safety.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 26, 1958

K.L. Chaturvedi v.State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · null

The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Drugs Act, 1940, arguing that the amendment requiring mandatory disclosure of the true formula or ingredient list for his proprietary medicine 'Germs Killer' would expose his trade secret. The court upheld the amended provisions, finding them reasonable and necessary for public health and safety.

patent defendant favorable · Jun 25, 1957

Hiralal Banjara And Anr. v.Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.

Calcutta High Court

The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the term of their patent or grant a new one, arguing that successive applications for extension were permissible. The court held that based on the scheme of the Act, only one application for extension is contemplated, and once an extension is granted, the power for granting further extensions is exhausted.

1 •••232 233 234

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 →