Koninklijke Philips electronics N.V.

DVD Decoding Device: converting a modulated signal to a series of m-bit information words

Alleged Patent infringement of IN-184753 through manufacture,assembly,sale of DVD players using the patented decoding technology without a license despite knowledge of patent and licensing requirement.

- 13 February 1995: Patent Registration.
- 12 February 2015: Patent Expiry
- 21 July 2017: Reserved for Judgment

- Philips proven to be the owner of IN-184753.
- Patent a standard-essential patent in respect of DVD technology
- Infringement found due to lack of a valid license and independent technical analysis.
- No Injunction since the Patent has expired.
- Royalty payable at FRAND rates

- Defendants manufactured/sold DVD players under SOYER and PASSION brands that were found to use EFM + demodulation techniques covered by the patent.
- Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion was rejected (Exhaustion arises only if the plaintiff or its licensee sold the patented technology, which was not proven).

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156062069/

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

IN 203036: Apparatus for producing from an original speech signal a plurality of parameters.
IN 203034:
IN 203686: Method and system for alternating transmission of codec mode information
IN 213723: Method and apparatus for generating comfort noise in a speech decoder.
IN 234157: A method of encoding/decoding multi-codebook fixed bitrate CELP signal block

SEP on Adaptive Multi-Rate Code Technology

Ercisson alleged that Kingtech was infringing their SEP on Adaptive Multi-Rate Code Technology by importing goods

- May 8, 2007: Notification of the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
- March 16, 2011: Date of the bill of entry (No. 2979282) for the imported mobile phones
- March 30, 2011: Customs decision to suspend the clearance of the consignment
- April 5, 2011: The appellant furnished the requisite bond and security to the Customs Authorities
- December 19, 2011: A Single Judge of the High Court allowed an application to stay the suspension order and directed the release of the goods

- Passed an Injunction against Kingtech.
- The high court ordered the commissioner to issue a fresh order with sufficient reasons to establish that Kingtech's goods infringed Ericsson's SEP.

- Validity and interpretation of R.7(1)(a) of the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
- Disposed Application - undertaking and Customs' requirement to notify the plaintiff when defendant's import consignment is made considered sufficient.

https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ericsson-v-kingtech.pdf
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/telefonaktiebolaget-lm-ericsson-publ-vs-mercury-electronics-and-anr

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Ericsson covering mobile communications technologies (2G, 3G, EDGE, etc.) as recognised by ETSI and used in GSM/CDMA compliant handsets

Micromax alleged Ericsson's licensing practice of exorbitant and discriminatory royalty rates that have no relation to the value of the patented technology used and bundled licensing of SEPs with non-SEPs in a package, leaving no choice to license only relevant patents, constituted an abuse of dominant position.

- 24 June 2013: Micromax filed complaint with CCI
- 12 November 2013: CCI Order (prima facie finding & DG referral)
- March 2013: Ericsson sued Micromax in Delhi HC

- Ericsson enjoyed a dominant position in the relevant market due to its control of SEPs and lack of alternatives.
- Royalty based on sale price of the entire handset rather than technology value, confidentiality clauses, and lack of transparent, FRAND-compliant terms — were discriminatory and potentially exploitative.
- CCI directed the Director General (DG) to carry out a detailed investigation into the allegations.

- Dominance isn’t simply based on patent ownership, but on the unavailability of alternative technologies that implement essential standards
-European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) IPR Policy
- Ericsson’s royalty structure and use of confidentiality agreements violated Equitable rates (Fair), Linked to value of patented technology (Reasonable), Same terms for similarly situated Licensees (Non-discriminatory): FRAND obligations.

https://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/CCI-Case-no-50-2013.pdf

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) relating to 2G and 3G technologies used in mobile handsets and network equipment.

Subsequent to the abuse of dominant position complaint filed by Micromax at CCI, Ericsson challenged the orders of the CCI before the Delhi High Court through a writ petition arguing that CCI lacked jurisdiction.

- 12 November 2013 & 16 January 2014: CCI prima facie orders
- 2014: Ericsson’s writ petitions filed

- High Court held that CCI has jurisdiction under the Competition Act
- There is no inconsistency or repugnancy between the Patents Act and the Competition Act.
- Orders under Section 26(1) directing an investigation are administrative in nature, but still subject to judicial review on limited grounds (illegality, lack of jurisdiction, perversity, breach of natural justice).

- The court rejected Ericsson’s contention that exercising rights under the Patents Act could not, by itself, constitute abuse of dominance.
- Competition Act applies where anti-competitive conduct is alleged, even if related to licensing of IP rights
- Civil patent suits and competition investigations are not mutually exclusive; each forum has a different purpose and jurisdiction.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164770226/

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) relating to 2G and 3G technologies used in mobile handsets and network equipment.

Ericsson appealed against the earlier 2016 Single Judge judgment (which held that the CCI had jurisdiction to investigate alleged abuse of dominance by Ericsson under the Competition Act

- 30 March 2016: 2016 Decision (Single Judge) recognizing CCI jurisdiction
- 2020: 2020 Decisions (High Court) reinforcing that CCI can investigate SEP competition matters.

- Division Bench held that the Competition Act does not empower the CCI to inquire into alleged anti-competitive conduct by a patentee in the exercise of its rights under the Patents Act.
- Patents Act will prevail over the Competition Act where the dispute concerns the exercise of patent rights.

- Chapter XVI of the Patents Act (provisions related to abuse of patent rights, unreasonable licensing conditions, compulsory licensing, etc.) is a complete code for addressing such disputes, and thus pre-empts the Competition Act in this domain.
- Patents Act contains detailed mechanisms for regulating unfair or abusive licensing practices, leaving no overlapping jurisdiction for the CCI.
- SEP licensees and other patentees must primarily seek remedies under the Patents Act (e.g., compulsory licensing, fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions) and civil litigation, rather than CCI complaints,

https://www.legitquest.com/case/telefonaktiebolaget-lm-ericsson-publ-anr-v-competition-commission-of-india-anr/7814CE

Intex Technologies (India) Limited

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

Telecommunications technologies covered by Ericsson’s SEPs, specifically technologies standardized by organizations like ETSI and 3GPP that are essential for GSM, 3G, and 4G LTE mobile devices

Intex alleged that Ericsson abused its dominant position in the market for Standard-Essential Patents by demanding excessive and discriminatory royalty rates that were not linked to the value of the patented technology in Intex products.
It also charged royalties based on end-product sale price rather than the value of the patented contribution.

-30 September 2013: Complaint filed by Intex with CCI
- 16 January 2014: CCI Order directing investigation
- 17 February 2014: Related writ petition before Delhi High Court challenging CCI Order

- Ericsson enjoyed dominance in the relevant market for SEPs covering 2G/3G/4G technologies, due to the size and essential nature of its patent portfolio
- CCI directed the Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation into the allegations of abuse of dominance.
- Observations were prima facie and not a final expression of opinion on the merits

- Patent licensing practices can fall within the scope of competition law, as long as there’s no irreconcilable conflict with the Patents Act

https://www.cci.gov.in/images/antitrustorder/en/7620131652335221.pdf

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

Intex Technologies (India) Limited

AMR (Adaptive Multi-Rate) patents:
IN 203034
IN 203036
IN 234157
IN 203686
IN 213723
3G patents:
IN 229632
IN 240471
EDGE patent:
IN 241747

- AMR speech codec for efficient voice encoding/decoding at low bit rates;
- 3G multi-service handling and mobile radio communication protocols;
- EDGE retransmission and modulation features for enhanced packet data rates.

Ericsson alleged Intex sold various telecommunications devices in India that incorporated and infringed its SEPs without taking a FRAND licence, despite repeated offers and negotiations.

- 2014: Suit filed (CS(OS) No. 1045/2014)
- 13 March 2015: Interim injunction hearing & judgment

- Delhi High Court dismissed Ericsson’s interim injunction application
- Interim injunction was refused, and litigation was directed to proceed to a full trial on merits
- Held that a patent’s mere grant did not prove prima facie validity at the interlocutory stage; defendants had raised “credible challenges” supported by revocation proceedings

- An implementer is not to be labelled “unwilling” solely because it questions patent validity or seeks proof of essentiality
- Pecuniary loss from unpaid royalties can be compensated by damages; it does not automatically amount to irreparable harm.
- Indian courts require rigorous prima facie proof of both validity and essentiality before granting interim relief in SEP disputes.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74163100/

Intex Technologies (India) Limited

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

Telecommunications technologies used in mobile phones, particularly technologies implemented in 2G/3G/EDGE/UMTS networks that are part of international telecom standards (3GPP/ETSI)

Ericsson claims: Patent infringement by Intex for their mobile devices using Ericsson’s SEPs without a licence.
Intex Appealed stating Ericsson’s patents were not prima facie valid or proved essential.

- Upheld Single Judge’s finding that Ericsson’s eight SEPs were prima facie valid, essential and infringed by Intex
- Ericsson had shown prima facie compliance with its FRAND obligations, and that Intex’s conduct in prolonging negotiations and litigating before regulatory bodies indicated unwillingness.
- Division Bench set aside the interim royalty order requiring only 50 % payment by bank guarantee and directed Intex to pay the entire interim royalty amount to Ericsson within four weeks.

- SEP owner can seek interim injunctive / payment relief if the implementer is an “unwilling licensee” during negotiations
- Mere filing of a revocation petition by Intex did not create a presumption of invalidity; Intex had to raise credible prima facie evidence of invalidity.

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/595758

Best IT world India Pvt. Ltd.

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

2G, 3G (WCDMA/HSPA), and EDGE technologies
Declared to ETSI and recognized as Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)

Best IT World alleged that Ericsson abused its dominant position in the market by refusing to identify the patents it claimed were infringed until iBall signed Ericsson’s onerous Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).
- Forcing a restrictive NDA with 10-year confidentiality, foreign (Stockholm) arbitration jurisdiction, and covering past as well as future sales.
- Demanding excessive and discriminatory royalty rates, including royalties linked to the end-product price rather than the value of patented technology

- Ericsson was prima facise dominant in the relevant market for SEP technologies.
- Ericsson’s practices such as linking royalty to final handset price, enforcing restrictive NDA terms, licensing terms that could apply retroactively, and jurisdiction conditions were prima facie discriminatory and potentially contrary to Ericsson’s FRAND commitments under ETSI IPR policy.
- CCI directed its Director General (DG) to conduct a detailed investigation under S.26(1) Competition Act

- Ericsson’s participation in ETSI required an undertaking to license SEPs on FRAND terms.
- Relevant product market: Standard Essential Patents for 2G, 3G and 4G technologies in GSM compliant mobile communication devices in India.

https://www.cci.gov.in/images/antitrustorder/en/0420151652328342.pdf

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

Best IT world India Pvt. Ltd.

- AMR speech codec for efficient voice encoding/decoding at low bit rates;
- 3G multi-service handling and mobile radio communication protocols;
- EDGE retransmission and modulation features for enhanced packet data rates.

Ericsson alleged that Best IT World importing, selling or offering for sale device that consisted of mobile technologies that infirnged Ericsson's patent since it was utilised without license.

- 2015: Suit Filed
- 21 August 2015: Hearing of Interim application

- Ericsson established a prima facie case that its patents were valid, essential and infringed by iBall’s devices.
- Non-provision of detail were insufficient, as Ericsson had filed claim charts, technical specs and expert test reports demonstrating used AMR, 3G and EDGE technologies covered by the suit patents.
- Interim injunction was granted

- Court applied global SEP/FRAND principles (Huawei v. ZTE), holding that a SEP holder must provide sufficient detail to allow licensing discussions.
- Importer has an obligation to ensure products do not infringe valid patents, and the inability to verify with OEMs does not absolve infringement liability.
- suit co-existed with iBall’s CCI complaint against Ericsson alleging abuse of dominance in FRAND licensing

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e3bfe56109277ee46d32

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson

SEP Portfolio of technologies related to cellular communications:
- Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) speech codec – enhancing speech quality and bandwidth efficiency, mandatory for 3G and optional in 2G.
- Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) – optimizing retransmissions and data throughput.
- 3G features – multi-service handling in mobile communication

Cross-Suits between Lava and Ericsson:
- Ericsson alleged infringement of its SEPs by Lava’s mobile devices sold in India without a license from Ericsson.
- Lava sought revocation of Ericsson’s suit patents under Sections 3(k), 64(1)(h)–(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, contending they relate to mere algorithms/computer programs or were obtained with misrepresentation to the Indian Patent Office

- 2015–2016: Inter-party disputes and initial actions
- 10 June 2016: Interim Injunction against Lava

- Lava infringed seven of Ericsson’s eight SEPs, which were valid, enforceable and essential.
- One patent, IN 203034, relating to Linear Predictive Analysis by Synthesis Encoding Method and Encoder, was revoked based on Lava’s counterclaim.
- Defence that chipsets supplied by third parties were licensed did not negate Lava's liability under Section 107A of the Patents Act

- Suit initiated in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson v. Lava International Ltd., March 2016
- Interim order Delhi HC: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson (Publ.) v. Lava International Ltd., June 2016
- Lava was an unwilling licensee for failing to negotiate in good faith (delaying discussions, failing to engage on royalty offers) and not responding to Ericsson’s licensing proposals.

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/595756

Inter Digital Technology

Mobile telecommunications technologies in modern handsets that comply with 3G and 4G standards:
- HSUPA uplink resource optimization
- LTE dynamic resource allocation and signaling
- MIMO antenna error signaling
- Efficient LTE shared resource requests
- Power-saving mode control in LTE modems

Alleged Patent Infringement on the basis that Xiaomi’s cellular handsets implement the technology claimed by InterDigital’s SEPs without a licence.

- 9 June 2020: Xiaomi invokes Wuhan SEP royalty rate proceedings
- 29 July 2020: InterDigital files Indian suit(s)
- 4 August 2020: Summons issued by Delhi High Court
- 23 September 2020: Wuhan Court issues anti-suit injunction
- 9 October 2020: Delhi HC order restraining enforcement of Wuhan order

- InterDigital’s suggestion for a two-tier confidentiality club regime (to restrict sensitive licensing materials even from the defendant) was not accepted
- Did not rule on infringement or FRAND terms at this stage; the suit remained pending before the Delhi High Court with interlocutory applications

- While confidentiality clubs are useful, courts will not impose contractual duties that effectively prevent a defendant from accessing evidence used against it.

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/595700

Inter Digital Technology

Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.

Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) relating to 3G & 4G wireless communication owned by InterDigital

InterDigital filed IA anti-enforcement against the Wuhar Intermediate People's court Order which restricts prosecution of the Indian suit and enforcement of interlocutory injunction in India.

-23 September 2020: Wuhan Court anti-suit/injunction Order
- 9 October 2020: Indian HC Interim Injunction (ad-interim)

- Delhi High Court allowed InterDigital’s application.
- Impermissible interference with Indian courts’ jurisdiction over infringement claims concerning Indian patents.

Anti-suit injunction granted by the Wuhan Court was made ineffective in India. Xiaomi and affiliates are restrained from enforcing or acting on that foreign order in India
- Patent rights are territorial; Indian patents can be enforced only in India.
- Indian courts have exclusive authority to determine infringement, validity and interim relief concerning Indian patent rights.
- Anti–enforcement injunction: even if another country’s court issues an order, it cannot be enforced in India if it interferes with Indian statutory rights.
- Comity of Courts is not absolute; it cannot be invoked to allow a foreign court’s coercive order to restrict access to Indian remedies

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159852349/

Nokia Technologies OY

Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications

Cellular telecommunications technology required to implement the 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G standards adopted and standardized through bodies like the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)/3GPP.

Nokia alleges Oppo infringed their patents by using technologies covered by its three SEPs without valid license after the expiry of the earlier license.

- 2021: Suit filed
- 23 December 2021: Reservation of Judgment.

- Dismissed Nokia’s interlocutory application (I.A. 7700/2021) seeking an interim deposit order under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC
- Interlocutory deposit orders are exceptional and not automatic merely because a patent holder asserts infringement and offers to license on FRAND terms.

- Negotiation offers and counter-offers between Nokia and Oppo during FRAND licensing talks could not be treated as admissions of liability for the purpose of interim security deposits
- Infringement, validity, essentiality and FRAND rates were genuine and could not be resolved at the interlocutory stage

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/637f57219e5a8a5f0188ad5f

Nokia Technologies OY

Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications

Wireless data signaling and channel multiplexing
High-speed packet access methods
Adaptive speech/data synchronization protocols

Alleged patent infringement for Oppo’s manufacture, importation, sale and offer for sale of mobile devices that allegedly incorporate Nokia’s SEPs without a valid license.

- 2021: Suit filed
- 23 December 2021: Reservation of Judgment.
- 17 Nov 2022: Single Judge delivered order dismissing Nokia’s deposit application
- 24 Apr 2023: Appeal heard and judgment reserved

- Division Bench allowed Nokia’s appeal against the Single Judge’s 17 Nov 2022 order.
- Set aside the Single Judge’s order and directed Oppo to deposit the last paid licence amount attributable to India (23 % of the 2018 global licence fee) within four weeks as pro-tem security

- Indian courts have jurisdiction to grant pro-tem security orders in SEP disputes even before a full merits analysis on validity/essentiality/infringement
- Admission of past licence, continued use, willingness to negotiate and offers for interim payments were treated as sufficient for a prima facie case under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC
- Need to balance interests of patent holders against implementers in long SEP litigation, considering delays and potential market advantage.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16140284/

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericson (Publ.)

AMR patents (Adaptive Multi-Rate):
IN203034, IN203036, IN234157, IN203686, IN213723
3G Patents:
IN229632 and IN240471
EDGE Patent:
IN241747

AMR (Adaptive Multi-Rate) – a speech-coding standard used in GSM networks.
3G/WCDMA – third-generation cellular technology standards.
EDGE – Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (a 2.5G enhancement)

Alleged Patent Infringment under the Patents Act, 1970, for unauthorized use of Ericsson’s standard-essential patents in the defendants’ mobile devices.
Argued that Part of the technology (notably in Qualcomm-based chipsets) might be licensed via Qualcomm’s prior license with Ericsson.

- 8 December 2014: Ad-Interim injunction granted
- 16 December 2014: Division Pro-term order
- 2015: Xiomi Application to vacate injunction

- Accepted the plea of concealment raised by Xiaomi to a limited extent.
-Ericsson failed to discharge its heightened duty of disclosure while seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
- The Court vacated the interim injunction dated 8 December 2014 insofar as it related to the two 3G/CDMA patents, namely IN 229632 and IN 240471.

- Examined grounds of concealment and whether Ericsson improperly withheld information like its licensing arrangements with Qualcomm when seeking the interim injunction.
- interim injunction continued with respect to the remaining patents (relating to AMR/2G/EDGE), subject to further consideration.
- Ericsson did not place the Ericsson–Qualcomm agreement dated 1.10.2011 on record.

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/595698

Koninklijke Philips electronics N.V.

Vivo Mobile Communications Co. Ltd.

UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System / 3G / WCDMA)
HSPA / HSPA+ (High-Speed Packet Access and enhancements)
LTE (Long-Term Evolution / 4G)

Philips alleged that vivo infringed their patents by manufacturing, importing, selling and offering for sale mobile devices that allegedly use the patented technologies without a proper license.

- 2020: Suit filed CS (COMM) 383/2020
- 7 January 2022: Order on discovery/production application

- Allowed in part Philips’ discovery application under Order XI Rules 2 & 14 CPC and ordered production of certain documents and interrogatory responses from Vivo.
- Vivo’s review petition was dismissed.

- Discovery and interrogatories can be suitably granted in commercial patent disputes to clarify technical implementation.
- Review petitions are not for re-hearing merits or revisiting factual pleadings, especially where the same relief was earlier sought and rejected

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83303637/

Inter Digital Technology

Guadong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications

IN 262910 PCT/US2006/015275
IN 295912 PCT/US2007/018440
IN 313036 PCT/US2007/002571
IN 319673 PCT/US2007/022759
IN 320182 PCT/US2008/001344
IN 242248 PCT/US2003/021735
IN 299448 PCT/US2003/021735
IN 308108 PCT/US2007/022795

- SEPs that relate to wireless communication technology standards
- SEPs that relate to H.265 high efficiency video coding

InterDigital initiated commercial patent infringement suits against Oppo and its affiliates in India after long-running, yet unsuccessful, licensing negotiations that dated back to 2014.

- October 2014: Negotiations begun
- 2017: NDA Signed
- 2021: Litigation in India filed
-2022: Interim procedural hearings & bank guarantee orders.

- Defendants must deposit a specified amount with the Registrar General of the High Court, representing security for accrued royalties on past sales.
- Delay and conduct evidenced “unwilling licensee” behaviour, justifying the requirement for security.
- Bank guarantees must be subject to its jurisdiction and not be circumventable through proceedings in other countries

- SEP implementer must demonstrate willingness to negotiate and arrange adequate security for royalties pending determination of final FRAND rates.
- Hold-out strategy: exchanged offers and counteroffers over many years with little progress toward a binding licence

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122559806/

Atlas Global Technologies LLC

IN 419323: System and Method for Synchronization of OFDMA Transmission
IN 427595: Apparatus and Methods for TXOP Duration Field in PHY Header

- SEPs essential to Wi-Fi 6
- Wi-Fi 6 (IEEE 802.11ax) standard

Defendants (TP-Link group companies) allegedly manufacture, import, and sell Wi-Fi 6 compliant routers, modems, access points, and range extenders in India
They implement the Wi-Fi 6 standard without obtaining a licence from the plaintiff

- June 2021: Plaintiff–Defendant licensing correspondence begins
- 9 Feb 2021: Wi-Fi 6 final standard approved (802.11ax-2021)
- 21 Aug 2023: Suit first listed

- Plaintiff had established a prima facie case which provied suit patents are asserted as SEPs; Defendants’ products admittedly comply with Wi-Fi 6; long-running negotiations without payment indicated continued unlicensed use
- Directed the defendants to deposit one-fifth of the amount reflected in their own counter-offer
- Ordered conditional injunctions
- Confidentiality Club was constituted under the Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022 to allow inspection of sealed-cover licensing correspondence.

- FRAND obligations bind both SEP holders and implementers. Implementers must show bona fides by backing counter-offers with security.
- Rule 5(v) of the Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022, courts can direct monetary deposits even at an early stage, without conclusively deciding on infringement or final FRAND rates.
- SEP friendly Interim framework with judicial support for pro term security orders.

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/595672

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

IN 175971: Digital Transmission system

- Digital audio compression and transmission technology used in VCDs
- Part of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 audio compression systems standarised under ISO/IEC 11172-3

Philips claimed that M. Bathla & Anr. (DVD/VCD manufacturers/replicators) were manufacturing, selling and offering for sale VCDs in India that infringed the suit patent without a licence.

- 2004: Suit originally filed
- 28 May 2010: Patent expired during proceeding
- 2018: Suit renumbered and continued

- Delhi High Court dismissed Philips’ patent infringement suit.
- Philips could not demonstrate that Bathla’s manufacturing/replication process for VCDs used the specific digital transmission system claimed in the patent.

- The Court performed a detailed technical analysis, distinguishing the processes actually employed by Bathla (e.g., use of licensed third-party hardware/software) from the process claimed in the patent
- Similarity of outcome alone is insufficient; Philips needed to prove that the process implemented was the one claimed in the patent.

https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2025-10-16/h6976dst/Koninklijke_Philips_N_V__Vs_M__Bathla___Anr_.pdf

Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki

IN244759 (“IN759”): Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus in Spinning Machine

Yarn spinning equipment : Mechanical and structural features (including rollers with grooves ≥ 0.04 mm depth) that reduce cotton “fly” accumulation and improve efficiency

LMW Limited's Spinpact knurled rollers contained grooves of 0.15 mm depth, which fell within the scope of the claimed groove dimensions (≥ 0.04 mm) of IN759 — thereby amounting to infringement during the patent’s subsistence

- 28 May 2004: Filing of IN759 (with priority)
- 24 May 2005: Patent application submitted in India
- 20 December 2010: IN750 granted

- High Court refused to grant an interim injunction restraining LMW.
- A patent holder cannot claim lifetime monopoly beyond the 20 year statutory period.

- once a patent expires, it ceases to have effect under Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, and the technology enters the public domain, wherein no effective injunctive relief can be granted thereafter

https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2025-07-04/mmp7rshw/Kabushiki_Kaisha_Toyota_Jidoshokki_v__LMW_Limited.pdf

Communication Component Antenna Inc.

Ace Technologies & Ors.

IN240893: Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency

- antenna technology for cellular communication systems
- antenna design that produces asymmetrical beam patterns that improve spectrum efficiency and increase subscriber capacity

The plaintiff alleged two specific models of the defendants’ antennas were designed and sold with beam patterns that infringed the technical scope of the suit patent

- 2018: Suit Filed
-12 July 2019: Interim Injunction application disposed
- 8 August 2019: Division bench refused to stay 2019 order
- 2020-24: Matter continuted through evidence

- Strong case exists for infringement of IN 240893 by the defendants
- Directed defendants to deposit security equivalent to 25 % of the total claimed damages to protect the plaintiff’s interests

- Where defendants lack significant attachable assets in India and risks persist that a successful plaintiff will be unable to recover, Section 151 CPC can be invoked
- Earlier prima facie findings and procedural history as sufficient to justify interim securit

https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2025-07-02/uwcuw853/CCA_Vs_Ace_technlogies.pdf

Communication Component Antenna Inc.

Mobi Antenna Technologies Co. Ltd.

IN240893: Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency

- antenna technology for cellular communication systems
- antenna design that produces asymmetrical beam patterns that improve spectrum efficiency and increase subscriber capacity

Claimed that the defendant’s bi-sector array antennas (e.g., models MB1800-PSA4-18DE10, MB1800-PSA4-18DT4 and MB3F-PSA4-19DE) possess beam patterns identical or substantially similar to the asymmetrical beam patterns claimed in IN 240893 and thus infringe the suit patent

- 5 August 2008:
Patent Indian phase application filed
- 9 June 2010: Patent IN240893 granted
- 2016: Original Suit filed
- 4 February 2022: Validity Issue

- Ruled in favor of Communication Components Antenna Inc.
- Defendant failed to prove revocation under Sections 64(1)(h) or (k) of the Patents Act in the absence of pleadings and evidence
- Found to infringe the patented asymmetrical beam technology claimed in IN’893, based on polar beam patterns and expert evidence comparing the products’ beam characteristics

- significant reliance on product beam patterns and brochure disclosures as evidence
- onus remains on the challenger. The patent’s validity was upheld on the existing record
- how courts may apply market analysis and reasonable profit estimates to quantify lost profits in the absence of financial records.
- injunctive relief should ordinarily not extend beyond patent expiry

https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2024-05/2d79cda3-fd7f-413f-a316-2416edbf195c/Communication_Component_Antenna_Inc_v_Mobi_Antenna_Technologies.pdf

Union of India and Others

- computer-implemented methods and devices for accessing information sources and services on the web
- software-based techniques, raising questions of patentability

Patent office refused application on the grounds of sections 3(k) and 2(1)(j) of Patents Act, 1970.
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution sought to quash the IPAB/Patent Office rejection and direct re-examination

- 17 July 2002: Filing of National Phase Application
- 21 Februruary 2005: Patent office first examination report
- 18 November 2008: Patent office rejection
- 25 March 2013: IPAB dismissal Appeal

- quashed the IPAB order, and directed the Patent Office to re-examine the application
- Decide whether the invention produced a ‘technical effect’ or ‘technical contribution’
- Patent Office must give opportunity of hearing and decide the application afresh within a fixed time

- Computer-related inventions (CRIs) are not categorically excluded if they demonstrate technical effect/technical contribution
- Patentability should hinge on whether the claimed invention resolves a technical problem, enhances performance, or offers a technical advancement.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90686424/

Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC

The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Application No. 1373/DEL/2003: Methods and Systems for Authentication of a User for Sub-Locations of a Network Location

- computer-implemented methods and systems for user authentication in network environments
- secure authentication using two-level cookies

Microsoft challenged an order dated 11 April 2019 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application.

- 7 November 2003: Patent Application filed
- 27 April 2016: First Examination report objections
- 20 February 2019: Hearing Notice raised further objections
- Controller rejection order: 11 April 2019

- set aside the Controller’s rejection order
- Controller misinterpreted Section 3(k) of the Patents Act by treating the claimed invention as a mere “computer program per se” without considering whether the invention provided a technical contribution or technical effect beyond an abstract set of instructions.
- remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh examination on the merits.

- Section 3(k) excludes from patentability only computer programs per se, not all inventions involving software or algorithms.
- an invention solves a technical problem, produces a technical effect or contributes to an improvement in existing technology, it may be patentable

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52362832/

Ab Initio Technology LLC

The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Method for Processing Data and a System Thereof
6500/DELNP/2011
6501/DELNP/2011

Field of data processing methods and systems, involving:
- Creation of subsets of data records from a data source,
- Partitioning and aggregating values to compute relationships between fields, and
- Presenting identified functional relationships

Appeals Against Patent Office Rejections under Section 3(k) and Section 16(1) of the Patents Act, 1970

- 25 August 2011 - Patent Application filed
- 23 March 2018, 28 September 2018: FER Issued
- June to August 2020: Hearing Notices
- 4 August 2020, 23 July 2021: Controller Rejection orders

- Allowed the appeals in part
- Inventions not inherently excluded from patentability under Section 3(k) because they achieved technical effects beyond mere algorithmic steps
- International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPRP) indicated distinct inventive concepts supporting division, and corresponding foreign divisional patents had been granted, supporting the validity of the divisional structure.

- When a data processing method/system results in improved computational performance, parallel processing efficiencies, or other technical advantages, such effects can render the subject matter patent-eligible.
- Recognition of distinct inventive concepts in the parent application and allowance of corresponding foreign divisional patents supported the Delhi HC’s view that the subject was legitimately filed as a divisional under Section 16(1)

https://www.legitquest.com/case/ab-initio-technology-llc-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-and-designs-and-ors/7AC76D

Idemia Identity and Security France

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Cryptographic method for applying cryptographic calculation using elliptical curves that masks execution timing of probabilistic algorithms.
Prevents timing-based attacks and improve security and computational efficiency

Idemia Identity & Security France challenged the Controller’s order which rejected the patent application on the ground that it was non-patentable under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 as a mathematical method/business method or computer program per se

- 22 June 2020: Impugned order rejecting patent application
- 2023: Appeal filed before Madras High Court

- Allowed the appeal and quashed the Controller’s rejection order.
- remanded to the Patent Office for fresh consideration on merits

- Controller had passed a non-speaking order, failing to properly consider the appellant’s submissions on technical contribution
- Importance of reasoned, speaking orders from patent authorities that address all contentions, including those relying on patent examination guidelines

https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/madras-high-court/2024/november/2024-latest-caselaw-21497-mad/

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

2482/CHENP/2012: Image Construction Apparatus

Computer-implemented system and method that enables image generation at both source and destination screens, facilitating control of multiple units/devices such as air conditioning units or other connected controllers

Appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Controller’s refusal of the patent application.

- 16 March 2012: Patent Application filed.
- 28 July 2017: FER Issued
- 2 December 2019: Hearing on Patentability
- 28 February 2020: Controller Refusal order

- Allowed the appeal, setting aside the Controller’s refusal order.
- remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration by a different examiner,

- Controller’s findings especially on inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(k) were not adequately reasoned
- did not properly discuss the technical contribution or engage with the appellant’s submissions including their reference to the Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines and foreign examination outcomes.
- Controller’s order was found to lack reasoned discussion on how the cited prior art would render the claimed invention obvious to a person skilled in the art.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13734105/

The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

1762/DEL/2008: Administration of Wireless Systems.

System and method for administering wireless systems:
- Configuration of mobile wireless client devices using primary and secondary wireless servers;
- Managing conflicts between multiple server configurations;
- Secure communication, data synchronization and conflict resolution logic between servers and mobile devices

Appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act for rejection of the patent application by the controller

- 2008: Patent application filed
- 2019; Controller hearing notice and objection
- 25 September 2019; Refusal order by Assistant controller
- 2022: Appeal filed

Delhi High Court dismissed BlackBerry’s appeal and upheld the Controller’s refusal.

- The claimed invention’s technical contribution was primarily a sequence of instructions or algorithmic logic for managing wireless system configuration, which falls within the exclusion under Section 3(k)
- Subject matter, even when read with the specification, did not demonstrate a further technical effect beyond algorithmic implementation

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50904559/

Largan Precision Co Ltd

Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd and Others

363203: Light Blocking Sheet, Imaging Lens Module and Electronic Apparatus.

- parts of mobile phone camera systems
- specifically light blocking sheets and imaging lens to improve image quality by reducing unwanted stray light that causes lens flare and visual artifact

Largan Precision Co Ltd sued Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd and others alleging that certain models: Moto G31, Moto G60 and Motorola Edge 30 Pro, incorporate imaging lens modules and light blocking sheets that infringe Indian Patent No. 363203

- 2022: Suit filed
- 2022: Interoggatories application filed
- 2023-24: Orders on investigative disclosures and sealed coover responses
- 6 December 2024: Judgment on disclosure/interrogatories and confidentiality club

Allowed the plaintiff’s application under Order XI Rule 2 CPC and directed Motorola to respond to detailed interrogatories regarding devices, manufacturing, shipments, sales volumes, and revenues for the identified smartphone models within six weeks
- Confidentiality club constituted
- Validated the filing of sealed cover responses by the defendants containing commercially sensitive materia

- Interrogatories should be allowed if the answers are relevant to the matters in dispute and help clarify issues for trial.
-Constitution of a confidentiality club under the Patent Rules and IPD Rules helps protect sensitive technical and commercial data while allowing essential disclosures for adjudication.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6799f4ce11e92d2af2649e0e

Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and Others

InterDigital VC Holdings Inc and Others

Cellular telecommunications technologies implemented in mobile phones, including 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G and HEVC (video coding) standards

Oppo appealed to the single judge order directing it to deposit a specified sum (covering past unpaid royalties on 2021-24 sales) with the Delhi High Court Registry rather than permitting bank guarantees and imposed costs.

- 20 December 2021 to 22 December 2021: InterDigital SEP suits filed
- 06 October 2022: Consent order re bank guarantes
- 21 February 2024: Single Judge’s modified order directing deposit and costs

- Allowed the appeals in part and modified the Single Judge’s order on interim security.
- Directed Oppo and co-defendants to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee from IDBI Bank (or other public sector bank) equivalent to 18.7 % (representative India share) of the global counter-offer plus interest, to secure InterDigital pending trial.
- Impugned order could not be maintained because it modified the consent order without consent and placed defendants in a materially worse position.

- Global bank guarantees issued by HSBC Paris were valid and enforceable as independent contracts and could secure InterDigital’s interests to the extent of the counter-offer.
- It was improper to compel HSBC India to appear or confirm them.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157943265/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited

Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation and another

209816: active pharmaceutical ingredient Sitagliptin and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts for treatment of type II diabetes

- Oral antidiabetic medicines.
- Sitagliptin, a DPP-IV inhibitor, slows degradation of incretin hormones to improve glucose control

MSD sued Glenmark alleging that Glenmark’s products “Zita” and “Zita-Met” containing Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate (SPM), alone or in combination with metformin infringed their valid Indian patent (IN 209816).

- 06 January 2004: Indian Patent Application filed.
- 06 September 2007: Patent granted
- 01 April 2013: Infrigement suit filed in High Court
- 20 March 2015: Delhi HC Interim injunction

- Division Bench of the Delhi HC found that Glenmark prima facie infringed the patent and granted an interim injunction restraining Glenmark from manufacturing, marketing or selling infringing productsa
- SC allowed the special leave petition by Glenmark to the limited extent of modifying the interim relief
- Allowed Glenmark to sell the existing stock of “Zita” and “Zita-Met” in the market for a limited period (covering 5–6 months’ worth of supply) to protect public access to medicines

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117ebd2713e179478b4631

The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs,

1071/DEL/2007: Method and System for Signalling release cause Indication in a UMTS Network

Telecommunications protocol technology

Appeal against rejection of the patent application by the Controller of the patent application dated 31st July 2019

- 17 May 2007: Patent Application filed
- 18 June 2015: FER issued
- 8 May 2018: Hearing Conducted
- 31 July 2019: Controller Rejection

Controller’s refusal order set aside and remanded. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned refusal order, and remitted the matter back to the Patent Office.

- Patent Office ought to issue reasoned and speaking orders when rejecting applications or proposed amendments.
- Amendments should be evaluated first to meet formal requirements and be considered within the scope of the original specification.
- Consider amendments under Sections 57 and 59 before turning to substantive objections under Sections 2(1)(j), 3(k), 3(m) and 8 which are a procedural requirement

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/682f7f648b7ae70ccdb161e6

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH and Co

Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Others

IN 243301: 8-(3-Aminopiperidin-1-yl)-xanthine Compounds

Linagliptin, a small-molecule anti-diabetic drug that belongs to the class of 8-(3-aminopiperidin-1-yl)-xanthine compounds.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed infringement suits against Indian generic manufacturers alleging defendants were manufacturing and selling linagliptin formulations in India that infringed IN 243301, which was in force until 18 August 2023.

- 21 August 2002: Priority Date
14 February 2005: Indian Filing
- 5 October 2010: Grant of IN 243301
- 2019: Infringement Suits filed
- 29 March 2023: Judgment on Interim Relief

- After the patent expired in August 2023, an appellate order clarified that no continuing injunction survives beyond expiry
- refused to grant a continuing interim injunction to restrain defendants from selling generic linagliptin products

- Sections 53(4) and 46(2) of the Patents Act discussed
- Filing successive patents on the same inventive concept — first a genus patent (IN 719) and later a species patent (IN 243301) — to extend monopoly beyond the 20-year term of the earlier patent is impermissible
- Linagliptin is an anti-diabetic drug used by a large patient population and public interest favoured allowing affordable generic access
- If the plaintiff succeeded at trial, monetary damages could adequately compensate any injury, making an injunction unnecessary

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104139475

TenXC Wireless INC and another

Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Limited.

IN240893: Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency

Wireless telecommunication antenna systems: fixed-beam split-sector antennas that divide a conventional symmetric coverage area into multiple sub-sectors, at least one of which has an optimized asymmetric beam pattern

TenXC Wireless Inc.and TenXC Wireless India Pvt. Ltd. sued Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. and others for infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893.

- 17 March 2006: Patent filing (PCT priority from Canadian application)
- 5 October 2008; Indian Patent filed
- 9 June 2010: Patent granted
- 2010: Suit Initiated
- 2020 October to November: Orders granting initial interim relief
- 4 November 2012: Interim applications dismissed

- The applications for injunctions were dismissed and the suit directed to proceed to trial on full issues including validity and infringement
- Interlocutory injunction should not be granted where there is a substantial, tenable and credible challenge to validity

- Defendants asserted revocation of the patent under Sections 64(1)(d), (e), (f), (h) and (k) of the Patents Act, 1970
- pointed to extensive prior art predating priority date, questioned compliances under sections 12,13 and 8 of the Patent Act, 1970.
- Monopoly rights via patent injunctions should not be lightly enforced where validity is materially in dispute.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198575838/

IN 349522: Tamper-Evident Closure with Tear Off Seal

Two-level tamper-evident closure system for containers:
- outer capsule with a first tear-off seal,
- inner cap with a second tear-off seal;
Both seals to be removed before the container can be opened.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ “Voila Closure” infringes the suit patent by incorporating the same key features (two tear-off seals and associated structures) and demanded that the defendants cease manufacture and sale

- 7 March 2012: Patent International Priority
- 12 August 2014: Indian patent filed
- 19 October 2020: Patent granted
- Cease and desist letter: 28 June 2021
- 2021: Suit instituted

- The Single Judge refused to grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling their closures.
- No prima facie case of infringement and Balance of convenience.

- Significant structural and functional differences between the plaintiff’s patented closure and the defendant’s product when compared with properly construed claims
- Essential elements of the plaintiff’s patent did not map onto the defendant’s product
- Granting an injunction at the interim stage would jeopardize their established business without convincing proof of infringement.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112161375/

Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd.

Water purifiers: customizable taste and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) adjustment functions.

Eureka Forbes alleges that Atomberg’s “Atomberg Intellon” water purifier utilizes technology covered by its patent(s) and infringes under Sections 104 and 108 of Patent Act, 19570, while Atomberg contends its product does not infringe and that threats communicated by Eureka Forbes to its business partners were groundless.

- 20 June 2025: Launch of Atomberg's Product Atomberg Intellon
- 1 July 2025: Atomberg grounless threats suit filed
- 7 July 2025; Eureka Forbes infringement suit filed
- 29 July 2025: Delhi Suit stayed by Supreme court on interim

- Supreme Court allowed the petitioner’s transfer petition and transferred Eureka Forbes’ patent infringement suit pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court
- transferred suit to be tried along with Atomberg’s earlier groundless-threat suit in Bombay High Court.

- Groundless threat suit under Section 106 constitutes an independent cause of action from a patent infringement suit under Sections 104/108 of the Patents Act, 1970.
- Applied principles of judicial economy and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. Two suits involve substantially overlapping questions of fact and law relating to the same patented subject matter and product.
- Transfer was ordered under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to facilitate consolidated adjudication

https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2025-livelaw-sc-1030-atomberg-technologies-private-ltd-v-eureka-forbes-ltd-17-oct-2025-630076.pdf

Conqueror Innovations Private Limited

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited

IN244963: Communication Device Finder System

Communication device finder system with an embedded non-erasable security feature that can be activated remotely to track, auto-answer, and locate lost or stolen cellular devices

Conqueror Innovations and the inventor alleged that Xiaomi’s mobile devices, tablets, etc. incorporate a “Find Device” feature that infringes the claims of the suit patent by providing anti-theft/location tracking functionality embedded in the device.

- 17 October 2006: Suit Patent filed
- 28 December 2010: Patent granted
- 2023: suit filed
- January to May 2024: Interim injunction hearing dates

- refused to grant interim injunctions sought by Conqueror Innovations against Xiaomi.
- plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement of Claim 1 of the suit patent by the defendant’s devices.

- Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature differs functionally from the essential elements of the patented system — notably, Xiaomi’s feature does not auto-answer calls silently and its activation can be interrupted by a factory reset
- Suit patent was shown (via Forms-27) to have been worked only minimally in India.
- Defendants had been selling devices with the “Find Device” feature in India since 2014, and yet the suit was filed only in 2023
- Xiaomi has sold its products widely in India for years without restriction, and the plaintiff offered no evidence of irreparable harm.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35757808/

Kroll Information Assurance LLC

The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors.

System, Method and Apparatus to locate at least one type of person, via a Peer-to-Peer Network.

Appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Controller’s refusal order dated 25 June 2019.

- Post 2007: Patent application filed
- 25 June 2019: Controller's refusal order
- 2022: Appeal filed

- Appeal dismissed (refusal upheld), but Section 59 finding partly reversed
- High Court set aside that part of the refusal, holding that the additional features in the amended claims narrowed the claim scope and were within the ambit of Section 59

- Generic use of a processor and memory to execute instructions does not suffice to meet the criteria of technical effect or technical advancement under S. 3(k) of Patent Act, 1970.
- limitations that narrow the claim scope and are supported by the original specification should be permissible under Section 59
- Patent is territorial and therefore patents granted in other jurisdictions (e.g., U.S., China, Australia, Japan) do not dictate patentability under Indian law

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/ABL01072025CAP4392022_125445.pdf

Dolby International AB & Anr.

Lava International Limited

IN 315744: MDCT-Based Complex Prediction Stereo Coding
IN 331640: Advanced Stereo Coding Based on a Combination of Adaptively Selectable Left/Right Or Mid/Side Stereo Coding And of Parametric Stereo Coding
IN 350055: Processing Of Audio Signals During High-Frequency Reconstruction

Audio coding and compression technologies, specifically AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) standards used in digital audio and smartphone devices.

Dolby International AB & Anr. sued Lava International Limited alleging infringement of their standard-essential patents (SEPs) relating to AAC audio codecs in Lava’s Android-compatible mobile devices.

- 31 December 2018: Patent Negotiations Began
- 2024: Present suit instituted

- Order was pro tem and protective, not a final finding on infringement, liability, or acceptance of the plaintiffs’ FRAND rates
- Directed Lava to deposit a substantial amount (~₹20.08 crore) representing royalties/pro tem security to Dolby based on Lava’s device sales from 2019 to 2024 at the claimed FRAND rate.
- Lava could furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of equivalent value

- Lava acted as an “unwilling licensee” by delaying negotiations without making a concrete counter-offer for more than six years, despite repeated offers and technical clarification from Dolby.
- Dolby’s claim charts mapping suit patents onto relevant standards were largely unrebutted; combined with widespread licensing by Dolby and expert admissions that Lava’s devices implemented the standards.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148335635/

Zydus Lifesciences Limited

E. R. Squibb And Sons, LLC & Ors.

IN 340060: Human Monoclonal Antibodies to Programmed Death-1 (PD-1) for Use in Treating Cancer

Immunotherapy drug Nivolumab (marketed globally as Opdivo®)

Appeal against the granted interim injunction by the ingle judge bench

- 5 July 2020: Patent granted
- 18 July 2025: Single judge interim injunction
- 20 December 2025: Division bench hearing reserved

Absolute restraint on Zydus was vacated.
Zydus was permitted to manufacture and sell its biosimilar product (ZRC-3276) during the remaining term of the patent (until 2 May 2026).

- Prima facie infringement analysis under Section 48 requires product-to-claim mapping showing that the accused product meets all claim limitations of the patent. A mere regulatory classification as a “biosimilar” does not automatically equate to infringement.
- The Single Judge treated the action as quia timet (in anticipation) of infringement and allowed skipping of strict mapping rules because the product was not yet in the market. The Division Bench rejected this, holding that Rule 3(A)(ix) of the Delhi High Court Patent Suit Rules.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/69654f4f009fae4635f19c18

Mold Tek Packaging Limited

Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.,

IN 401417: Tamper-Evident Leak-Proof Pail Closure System
IN 298724: Tamper-Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers & Process for Its Manufacture

Mechanical packaging/closure technology, specifically tamper-evident and tamper-proof lids incorporating structural features (like tear bands, locking lugs, spouts)

Mold Tek appealed the interim injunction vacation order of the commercial court to the Delhi High Court.

- 20 December 2023: Ex Parte interim injunction granted
- 2 May 2024: Commercail court vacates injunctions
- 2024: Appeal (FAO) filed with Delhi HC

- Delhi High Court D.B. quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 2 May 2024 that vacated the interim injunction.
- The matter was remitted to the Commercial Court for fresh de novo consideration of the defendant’s Order XXXIX R.4 CPC application with clear legal guidance.
- original ex-parte interim injunction (20 Dec 2023) continues to operate pending fresh consideration by the trial court.

- patent infringement action, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of infringement, the onus to prove invalidity (e.g., lack of novelty or inventive step under Sections 107/64 of the Patents Act) lies on the defendant,
- Infringement must be assessed by product-to-patent comparison (product-to-claim) rather than a mere product-to-product resemblance.

https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mold-tek-v-pronton-appeal-order-611487.pdf

Controller of Patents and Designs

Indian Patent Applicatio no. 2554/DEL/2013

Vertical Rotary Parking System/Mechanical/parking system technology

Dong Yang PC, Inc., filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Controller of Patents and Designs’ regarding the rejection (12 April 2024) of its patent application.

- 29 August 2013: Application filed
- 04 September 2013: Request for Examination
- 14 August 2013: First Examination report
- 12 April 2024: Rejection by Controller

- allowed the appeal, setting aside the Controller’s rejection order.
- remanded to patent office for de novo consideration by a different officer.

- Obviousness/inventive step was not adequately justified: the order did not show that the variation (reversal of coupling elements) was part of common general knowledge, or that it lacked any technical advancement
- Violation of the Principles of natural justice by not providing the appellant a fair opportunity to be heard.
- Invention should not be excluded merely because its mechanical changes appear simple when they confer technical advantage or improvement.

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68726092025CAP252022_194221.pdf

F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Genentech

Zydus Lifesciences Limited

IN 464646: Pertuzumab Variants and Evaluation thereof
IN 268632: Pharmaceutical formulation comprising HER2 Antibody

F-Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Genentech sued Zydus Lifesciences alleging infringement of the process patent (IN 646) by Zydus’s development and intended manufacture of its similar biologic, marketed as Sigrima

- 23 February 2024: Filing of Suit
- 9 July 2024: Earlier interim injunction on infringement
- Late 2024: Disclosure process application by plaintiff
- December 2024 to March 2025: Hearing Dates

- Interlocutory application dismissed
- Rejected Roche's plea to order Zydus to disclose its manufacturing process (even to members of the confidentiality club) under Section 104A of the Patents Act.

- Mandatory threshold for invoking Section 104A: demonstrating that Roche’s patented process and the defendant’s product are identical was not met by Roche.
- Two conditions to be satisfied under S.104A: defendant’s product is identical to the product directly produced by the patented process; and the patent covers obtaining a new product, or there is a strong likelihood that the identical product is made by the patented process, and it is difficult for the patentee to determine the process without disclosure.
- Zydus’s product (Sigrima) was a similar biologic submitted for regulatory approval, but not shown to be identical to the product directly obtained via Roche’s patented process.
- “Identical” cannot be diluted to mean similar even in the context of biologics. A biologic drug may resemble a reference biologic, but similarity does not satisfy the statutory requirement of being identical.

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/08/08/del-hc-can-invoke-sec-104a-patents-act-for-disclosure-manufacturing-process/

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd

The Controller of Patents & Anr.

IN 243301: linagliptin, an active pharmaceutical ingredient used for treating type 2 diabetes

Pharmaceutical technology: small-molecule anti-diabetic drug (linagliptin) belonging to DPP-IV inhibitors that improve glycemic control in diabetes patients.

Macleods Pharmaceuticals filed a stand-alone revocation petition before the Delhi High Court to revoke IN 243301 on grounds of invalidity (e.g., lack of novelty and inventive step) before the patent expired.

- 17 February 2022: Revocation petition filed
- 19 February 2022: Infringement suit filed by Patent holder
- 18 August 2023: Subject Patent expired
- 2 April 2024: Challenge on maintainability filed by Respondent.

- Dismissed the objections to the revocation petition.
- Upheld the maintainability and sustainability of the revocation petition

- Revocation petition under Section 64 is distinct from an invalidity defence under Section 107 of the Patents Act
- It removes the patent ab initio from the Register of Patents, while an infringement petition does not automatically expunge the patent; it only affects particular claims vis-à-vis the parties and requires separate steps for register rectification.
- Macleods also raised invalidity under Section 107 in the Himachal Suit does not bar it from pursuing an independent revocation petition under Section 64
- no statutory limitation period to file a revocation petition under Section 64; the Patents Act does not prescribe one.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83528155/

The Regents of the University Of California

Indian Patent Application no. 201717005699: Vaccine for Livestock Production System.

Recombinant Salmonella microorganism vaccine designed to stimulate immune responses in livestock against enteric bacterial infections

The Regents of the University of California (appellant) challenged the Controller’s refusal (14 July 2022) of its patent application on ss.3(c), 10(4) and 10(5) of the Patent Act, 1970

- 17 February2017: Indian Patent application filed
- 24 March 2021: First Examination Report issued
- 22 November 2021: Hearing before Patent office
- 14 July 2022: Controller refusal order
- 2022: Appeal to delhi high court

- Upheld the controller's refusal to patent the application and dismissed the appeal.

- Insufficient disclosure: complete specification failed to sufficiently disclose the invention. The patent application did not adequately describe the specific genetically modified Salmonella strains and how they were to be produced and used,
- Applicant also failed to deposit the biological material in a recognized depository under the Budapest Treaty
- Claims so broad that they potentially included naturally occurring loss-of-function Salmonella variants, which are excluded from patentability under Section 3(c), discovery of natural biological materials.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67bb647b5e49286f2d4e15f2

Caleb Suresh Motupalli

Indian Patent Application no. 5606/CHENP/2012: Necktie Persona-Extender/Environment-integrator and Method for Super-Augmenting a Persona to Manifest a Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg
Indian Patent Applicatio no. 201717005699: Vaccine for Livestock Production System.

Interdisciplinary AI-based human augmentation system involving the integration of human intelligence with artificial intelligence and virtual/environmental interface technologies

Appellant challenged an order of the Controller of Patents dated 27 October 2021 rejecting his patent application following a review petition under ss.77(1)(f) & (g), Patents Act, 1970.

- 27 June 2012: Patent Application filed.
- 27 October 2021: Controller's review rejection order
- 2024: Appeal filed
- 29 January 2025: Judgment delivered by Madras HC

Appeal was dismiseed, and the Controller's rejection was upheld

- appeal under Section 117-A is not maintainable against an order passed in review under Section 77(1)(f) of the Patents Act, as it is not one of the enumerated orders that attract a statutory appellate remedy under s.117-A.
- The specification lacked sufficient disclosure and enablement, and the claims were ambiguous and lacked definiteness.
- Invention lacked technical effect on hardware or system performance and was essentially abstract or conceptual, thereby failing Section 3(k).

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/679f8965060fea11c4ca0682

The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Indian Patent Application No. 201911036272: Intravenous Catheter Device

Intravenous catheter having structural features like a catheter hub, valve member with slits, and a valve closure member

Neeraj Gupta, challenged the Patent Office rejection order dated 11 February 2021 and the review/appeal dismissal dated 06 January 2023 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which refused the subject application under S.15, Patents Act, 1970.

- 10 September 2019: Subject Application filed
- 10 February 2020: First Examination report
- Controller's refusal: 11 February 2021
- 24 February 2021: Review Petition filed
- 06 February 2023: Controller dismissed review

Controller’s refusal set aside and matter remanded to patent office for fresh consideration.

- Patent Office failed to provide a reasoned analysis on inventive step and did not adequately explain how the claimed invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art when combining D1 and D2.
- Refusal for lack of inventive step must discuss:
invention in the prior art, claimed invention, and how and why the claimed invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
- Order failed to meaningfully explain important technical differences: absence of the valve closure member in the prior documents, different mechanisms for preventing blood backflow, and differences in functional operation.

https://www.latestlaws.com/amp/judgements/delhi-hc/2025/september/2025-latest-caselaw-5013-del/

Crystal Crop Protection Limited

Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.

IN 417213: Weedicidal Formulation and Method of Manufacture Thereof

Agrochemical formulation technology: weedicidal composition comprising Clodinafop Propargyl (9%) and Metribuzin (20%) in a specific ratio (1:2.2) together with a surfactant, dyeing agent or pigment, and a safener

Crystal Crop the patentee, filed a commercial suit alleging that Safex and related entities (defendants) were manufacturing, marketing and selling herbicidal products including ‘RACER’, ‘Trophy’, and ‘Jodi No.1’ that contained the same active herbicidal composition

- 12 March 2024: Suit Filed
- November 2024 to March 2025: Interim Injunction
- 24 March 2025: Judgment reserved

- Dismissed the plaintiff’s application for interim injunction
- Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of infringement
- Defendants to maintain full accounts of manufacture and sale of the alleged infringing products and file half-yearly statements for future assessment.

- Defendant products do not contain the ‘dyeing agent or pigment’, an element expressly claimed in the patent. There was no literal infringement.
- Doctrine of Equivalents could not be invoked to bridge that gap where an essential claim element is absent.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22603777/

Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd

The Controller Of Patents

Indian PatentApplication No. 7283/DELNP/2014: Novel Piperidine Compound or Salt thereof

Piperidine derivatives designed to inhibit Aurora-A kinase, a target for treating various cancers

Taiho appealed against the Controller of Patents’ rejection (dated 18 June 2021) of the patent application.

- 29 August 2014: Patent Application filed
- 18 June 2021: Controller rejection order

- Set aside the Controller’s order refusing the patent application and remitted the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh examination and hearing
- Controller to clearly identify the relevant “known substance” in any hearing notice and give the applicant an opportunity to respond

When the Patent Office objects under Section 3(d) it must:
- identify the specific known substance (with known efficacy) against which the claimed compound is compared,
- explain how the claimed compound is a derivative or new form that substance and
- provide an objective comparison of therapeutic efficacy.

https://s3.courtbook.in/2025/05/delhi-high-court-patent-controller-must-clearly-name-known-substance-in-hearing-notice.pdf

Indian Patent Application no. 201911031496: Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching

Sewing machine and associated method for producing a blind stitch

Petitioner challenged the deemed abandonment of his patent application under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, on the ground that it was abandoned due to procedural default by his patent agent

- 3 August 2019: Patent Application filed
- 21 February 2022: Request for Examination filed
- 29 April 2022: FER Issued
- october 2022: Application deemed abandoned
- 28 January 2023: Review by New agent and Restoration request filed.

- Quashed the deemed abandonment of Chaudhary’s patent application caused by the non-submission of the FER reply
- Allowed to submit the response to the FER within four weeks after the patent office updates the application status.
- found prima facie negligence and professional misconduct on the part of the patent agent
- High Court directed CGPDTM to draft, consult stakeholders on, and notify a Code of Conduct for patent and trade mark agents
- Court directed the CGPDTM to establish an ad-hoc committee to hear complaints against patent and trademark agents.

- Patents Act prescribes mandatory timelines (e.g., six months to reply to a FER under Section 21(1)), a procedural abandonment caused by an agent’s dereliction should not unjustly penalise a diligent applicant.
- Emphasised the need for Clear Code of Conduct, Complaint process, Penalties for negligence and misleading practices, and Mandatory identification and accountability.
- Writ jurisdiction may be utilitsed to condone time delay and restore rights that would otherwise be lost.

https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2024-07/34adf370-d3d9-4f59-8aa6-7b512afaebfc/Saurav_Chaudhary_v_Union_of_India___Anr.pdf

Alimentary Health Limited

Controller of Patents and Designs

Indian Patent Application no. 3989/DELNP/2012

Probiotic nutritional formulations: probiotic formulation involving a specific bacterial strain Bifidobacterium longum designated NCIMB 41676 (AH1714)

Appellant challenged the Controller’s refusal order dated 27 November 2018, rejecting the patent application under S.15 of the Act

- 2012: Patent Application filed
- 27 March 2017: First examination report
- 31 August 2017: Applicant's response to FER
- 27 November 2018: Controller Refusal order
- 2022: Appeal filed before Delhi High Court

- Quashed the Controller’s refusal order and remanded the application to the Patent Office for fresh reconsideration OF inventive step, novelty, and patentable subject matter.
- Controller to issue fresh hearing notice.

- Mere recitation of prior art without comparative rationale was insufficient. Controller must carefully address strain-specific differences and technical effects over prior art.
- Assessment of prior art must consider whether such art actually teaches the specific strain (NCIMB 41676) at the claimed concentrations in the claimed formulations and whether such a formulation yields unexpected or synergistic effects.
- If the claim relates to a method or dosage of using a known probiotic strain for a specific therapeutic effect, this raises issues on second medical use claims.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6643843aabba412054b5cf17

Sonalkumar Sureshrao Salunkhe

Assistant Controller of Patents

Petitioners challenged an Order dated 16 September 2021 of the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that their patent application was deemed abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970

- 24 June 2019: First Examination Report issued
- 24 December 2019: Petitioner Reply to FER
- 16 September 2021: Impugned Controller Order
- 2022: Appeal filed before Bombay HC

- Dismissed the petition because Section 117A does not permit an appeal against an order passed under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act.
-Only a refusal under Section 15 of the Act is appealable under Section 117A of the Patent Act.

- No appeal lies under Section 117A against a Section 21(1) abandonment order. Such decisions are not listed in the statutory appeal provision.
- Apart from comments on inventive step, the reply did not address all objections, and no extension of time was sought.

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/05/10/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news/

Controller, Patents and Designs

Indian Patent Application No. 201911036748: Recovery of Potassium Sulphate and Other Valuable Products from Spent Wash Leading to ZLD System

Chemical/process engineering technology: multi-step chemical process to recover potassium sulphate (a valuable agrochemical) and other products from distillery spent wash

Appellant challenged the Controller’s refusal of the patent application under Section 117A of the Patent Act, 1970, which was concerning non-patentability and lack of inventive step.

- 12 September 2019: Patent application filed
- 25 February 2020: First Examination Report
- 29 June 2020: Hearing notice issued
- 28 December 2021: Controller Refusal order
- 2022: Appeal filed.

- Quashed the Controller’s refusal order on the grounds that the Patent Office’s decision suffered from a mechanical, unreasoned approach.
- Remitted to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) for fresh examination or determination of the application (and any pre-grant opposition) without admitting new material.

- Controller must identify a specific known process that is alleged to be the basis for a Section 3(d) objection so that the applicant can meaningfully address that objection.
- A proper five-step approach must be applied with particular focus on person skilled in the art, inventive concept, and avoidance of hindsight

https://lawlens.in/doc/1f3ee886-fd1b-4733-b5c8-4c44a9a0d876

Astrazeneca Ab & Ors.

IN 209907: Species patent covering the compound Ticagrelor.
IN 247984: Polymorph patent for crystalline forms of Ticagrelor.
IN 272674: Formulation patent for pharmaceutical compositions of Ticagrelor

Patent infringement suits filed by AstraZeneca against generic manufacturers to restrain them from selling, marketing or dealing with Ticagrelor and related products alleged to infringe the asserted patents

- March to July 2018: Interim Injunction initially granted by Single Judge
- 8 August 2019: Interim injunction vacation

- Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vacated the interim injunctions previously granted in favour of AstraZeneca.
- Grant of patent does not by itself entitle the patentee to an interim injunction; if substantial validity challenges are raised

- Plaintiff must show a prima facie case of infringement and enforceability. Where the defendant raises a credible challenge to validity, interim relief may be denied.
- Applied Section 3(d) and noted lack of convincing evidence that Ticagrelor provided enhanced therapeutic efficacy over compounds in IN 229 (an earlier patent).
- Form 27 and foreign litigation: Older genus patent (IN 229) represented as covering the marketed product, which undermined exclusive rights assertions.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112512943/

Gaur Hari Guchhait and Ors.

IN 236630: Process for manufacturing d-trans Allethrin

Agro-chemical technology: six-step chemical process detailing reactants, reaction conditions, solvents and treatment steps to produce high-purity d-trans Allethrin which is used in mosquito repellents.

Shogun Organics Ltd. (Respondent in this appeal) had an order stating the appellants infringed their patents resulting in permanent injunction.
The appellants challenged this by filing this Regular First Appeal (RFA) under Order XLIII CPC before the Delhi High Court.

- 17 March 1997: Product registration under Insecticides Act (Shogun Organics Ltd.)
- 13 February 2008: Product registration under Insecticides Act (Gaur Hari Guchhait)
- 10 May 2007: Patent application filed
- 13 November 2009: Patent Grant
- 26 June 2013: Post grant opposition
- 18 August 2014: IPAB Appeal and reinstate patent
- 14 August 2018: Decree in favor of plaintiff)

- Division bench dismissed the Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed by the defendants, upholding the trial court decree that had found infringement of the process patent.

- Registration of a product under the Insecticides Act, 1968, does not equate to disclosure or public domain knowledge of the manufacturing process, nor does it bar grant or enforcement of a process patent under the Patents Act, 1970.
- Plaintiff established infringement through its evidence, and defendants failed to disclose their process, justifying an adverse inference that they used the patented process (Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872)

https://lawlens.in/doc/8cc14128-5ed3-4965-8231-0e361d6333a2

IN 276026: Novel Pyrimidine Compounds and Compositions as Protein Kinase Inhibitors
IN 233161: Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine)

Pharmaceutical: Small-molecule protein kinase inhibitors with antineoplastic activity.

Novartis originally obtained an interim injunction (9 January 2023) restraining Natco from exploiting the patent pending disposal of the suit. Natco filed IA 4636/2023 under Order XXXIX Rule 4, CPC seeking to vacate the interim injunction

- Prior to 2019: Patent Grant
- 2019: Suit instituted by Novartis
- 9 January 2023: Interim injunction granted to Novartis.
- 2023: Application to vaccate the interim injunction by Nacto.

- Allowed to file additional written statement in order to bring on record the facts pertaining to the Divisional Application of the plaintiffs but new pleadings were not entertained.
-The interlocutory injunction remains in place pending final trial.

- Refusal of a divisional patent application filed by Novartis was procedural, not on merits, and thus did not affect the prima facie validity of the main suit patent.
- Prior art and enablement insufficient at the interlocutory stage.
- Disclosure obligations under Order XI Rule 1(12) CPC extend through the suit.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183455282/ ; https://www.legitquest.com/case/novartis-ag-anr-v-natco-pharma-limited/7B4D8A

IN 233161: Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine)

Pharmaceutical: Small-molecule protein kinase inhibitors with antineoplastic activity.

Novartis alleged Natco was manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products containing Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine) (ELT-O) that allegedly infringed Indian Patent No. 233161

- 27 March 2009: Patent granted
- 24 May 2021: Prior patent coverinng Eltrombopag expired
- 13 December 2021: Impugned interim injunction originally granted by the Single Judge

Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s interim injunction restraining Natco from manufacturing, selling, distributing, importing or dealing in ELT-O products alleged to infringe.

- Natco challenged the patent’s validity on various grounds including Section 3(d) and Section 64 for revocation.
- Natco had not made out a credible challenge to the validity at the interim state and accepted Novartis Data.
- Natco must show that the challenge to validity was substantial enough to defeat the prima facie case on validity.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/66155ff8b4352716df6ab413

Natco Pharma Limited

IN 240207: Regorafenib, an anti-cancer drug used for treating metastatic colorectal cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumours.

Natco appealing against the single judge order of Delhi HC which granted Bayer healthcare the relief of interim injunction.

- 29 April 2010: Patent Granted
- June 2019: Defendant alleged market plans
- 5 July 2019: Interim injunction granted by Single Judge

- Appeal allowed
- Vacated the interim injunction of 5 July 2019 and directed that the interim injunction application be reheard on merits by the Single Judge

Prior interim injunction order did not clearly record satisfaction of the three essential elements: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d412dd7714d584148533716

The Controller of Patents and Ors.

Writ petitions challenging the consitutional validity of section 126 of Patents Act, 1970.

- 2005: Patents Amendment Act
- 15 March 2013: Original High Court Writ Petition decided
- 2014: Controller of Patents filed Writ Appeal
- 2016 to 2017: Subsequent writ petitions.

- Upheld earlier declaration that the amendment to Section 126 (removing advocates from eligibility to register as patent agents unless they hold specific technical degrees) is illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void
- Required Defendants to comply with the earlier order and process eligible advocates’ applications for registration as patent agents.

- Cannot arbitrarily exclude an entire class (here, advocates) without a reasonable basis.
- The right to practice any profession (Article 19(1)(g)) includes the right to pursue professional opportunities, subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Article 14 prohibits creation of unenumerated subclasses of professionals without a valid classification objective

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d3ad585b338d145e2fc113b#:~:text=The%20court's%20analysis%20focuses%20on,which%20led%20to%20contempt%20petitions.

Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation and Ors.

IN 271425: Machine and method for detecting inclusions in gemstones

Gemological imaging & detection technology

Galatea Ltd. and another alleged that Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation and others were manufacturing, using, selling, and offering for sale machines and/or services that employ technology covered by the suit patent without authorization.

- 2017: Suit Filed
- 26 March 2018: Single Judge interim order
- 19 February 2019: Appeal heard by Division Bench

Gujarat High Court Division Bench held that the plaintiffs had not made out a sufficiently strong prima facie case for interim injunction.

- A patent being granted does not automatically confer a strong prima facie case for relief, especially when the patent is recent and its scope/validity has not yet been tested.
- Standard interim injunction test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm) and held that patent vulnerability and lack of solid prima facie infringement evidence tilted against granting an injunction.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5de5a6d146571b2fd68a3a3b

Hindustan Unilever Limited

Eureka Forbes Limited and Ors.

Water purification systems both patents are in the field of water purifier devices/systems

HUL filed a patent infringement suit against Eureka Forbes

- 3 May 2006: Suit entertained
- August 2007: Defendants moved to reject plaint
- 2007-2008: Defendants Appeal and SLP to SC

Preliminary issue decided in favour of the plaintiff (HUL).

- Registered patentee can maintain a suit for infringement against another registered patentee under the Patents Act, 1970. (s.48)
- No statutory bar in the Patents Act preventing one patentee from suing another for infringement, even if both patents are registered.(s.107A)
- Such a suit is not barred by the existence of the defendant’s patent (s.107)

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d8b2ff5714d58374079d47a#:~:text=The%20preliminary%20issue%20is%20decided,under%20the%20Patents%20Act%2C%201970.

IN 215758: Sorafenib/Sorafenib Tosylate, an anti-cancer drug marketed globally by Bayer
IN 211300

Active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for oncology (Sorafenib) and cardiovascular therapy (Rivaroxaban)

- Bayer challenged Natco’s export of Sorafenib manufactured under a compulsory licence
- Bayer alleged that Alembic’s manufacture and export of Rivaroxaban, including DMF submissions to the US FDA and plans to launch in India, infringed Bayer’s patent IN 211300.

-The High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s interpretation that Section 107A is a broad Bolar-type exception.
- “Selling” in Section 107A is not confined to within India; exports of patented products to obtain regulatory approval internationally can fall under the exemption.
- Bayer’s writ petition against Natco was effectively dismissed on merits

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85364944/

Narendra Reddy Thappeta

The Union of India and Ors.

- Patent Rules, 2003 - Rule 116(e)'s constitutional validity challenged since it empowers the the Controller to remove a person’s name from the Register of Patent Agents if they cease to be an Indian citizen.

- 2001: Petitioner registered as a patent agent
- 2004: Petitioner acquired U.S. Citizenship
- 2016: Patent Rules amended

Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 116(e) and rejected petitioner’s challenge.

- Citizenship is a continuing qualification under Section 126(1) and, consequently, the Controller is empowered to remove a registered patent agent’s name upon cessation of Indian citizenship
- Rule 116(e) does not conflict with Section 126(2): the petitioner, having been registered before the 2005 Amendment, is still entitled to continue on payment of prescribed fee.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110016591/

Union of India and Ors.

Vaccine Manufacturing Contracts

Panacea Biotec engaged with the Russian Direct Investment Fund and its affiliates for technology transfer and manufacturing of Sputnik-V COVID-19 vaccine. The government asserted that the arbitration execution should not proceed since the contract was in flux and Panacea’s vaccine manufacturing position was unclear.

The High Court held there was no legal bar to directing the release of the award amount in Panacea’s favour, subject to conditions.

Arbitration awards have strong enforceability.
They not to be thwarted on extraneous policy concerns if the statutory framework allows execution and there is no valid stay or legal disqualification.

https://lawlens.in/doc/5aa05582-020f-48be-8e1c-28bc64f19f4c

La Renon Health Care Pvt., Ltd.

IN 224100: Compositions for augmenting kidney function

Nutraceutical formulation: probiotic nutritional products designed to assist in kidney function.

- La Renon filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the IPAB’s dismissal of its application to revoke Patent no. 224100 contending that it was purely an admixture without true inventive contribution.

- 23 August 2006: Patent granted
- 13 November 2013: Revocation Application dismissed by IPAB.

- Writ Petition dismissed, Madras High Court refused to interfere with the IPAB’s decision rejecting the revocation application

- La Renon failed to establish even a prima facie case challenging patent validity,
- In absence of expert evidence or cogent technical material, the High Court cannot substitute its own findings for those of the competent tribunal
- emphasised on the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226.

https://www.legitquest.com/case/ms-la-renon-health-care-private-limited-gujarat-v-union-of-india-ministry-of-commerce-and/1154EA

Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente

Indian Patent Application no. 7318/DELNP/2008)

“Method and System for monitoring a mobile station presence in a special area” that entered India from an international (EP) application.

Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging Deputy Controller’s refusal to accept his Form-18 (request for examination) since it was filed beyond the 48-month period as under Section 11B of the Patents Act, 1970 read with Rule 24B(1)(i) of the Patents Rules, 2003 and treatment of his application as deemed withdrawn.

- 27 March 2007: PCT Application filed
- 28 August 2008: Indian national Phase entered
- 19 November 2010: Form-18 examination request filed
- 25 November 2010: Deputy controller refusal of Form-18

Writ petition dismissed, Delhi High Court upheld the Controller’s order

- 48-month limitation in Rule 24B(1)(i) must be computed from the earlier of the priority date and filing date, and that interpretation was clear and unambiguous.
- period is strict and mandatory: it is to avoid applicants seeking extension of the period of enjoyment of right under S. 117A.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16011818/

Astrazeneca AB & Anr.

Intas Pharma Ltd. & Alkem Labs Ltd.

IN 205147: genus (Markush) patent covering a class of compounds for treating Type-II diabete
IN 235625: a species patent for Dapagliflozin (DAPA), a specific molecule used in treating diabetes

Small-molecule antidiabetic drugs, specifically the SGLT2 inhibitor Dapagliflozin and broader classes of related molecules

AstraZeneca filed separate suits seeking interim injunctions against Intas, Alkem and other generic manufacturers for manufacturing and selling drugs containing Dapagliflozin allegedly infringing both IN 147 and IN 625. The appeals challenged the refusal to grant interim injunctions

- 15 March 2007: Grant of IN 147
- 9 July 2009: Grant of IN 625
-2 November 2020 to 18 November 2020: Trial Court Interim injuntion

Division Bench upheld the trial courts’ refusal to grant interim injunctions.
The court found that AstraZeneca failed to demonstrate a prima facie case

- Both Patents: Held by AstraZeneca (assigned from Bristol Myers Squibb).
- only one patent can subsist for a single invention; claiming the same compound under two different patents undermines statutory patent rights
- AstraZeneca’s assertion that IN 147 did not disclose Dapagliflozin yet claiming infringement of IN 147 for defendants’ Dapagliflozin products was prima facie inconsistent and contradictory.
- IN 147’s broad chemical class was intended to disclose a range of compounds; however, the specific Dapagliflozin molecule must still be properly disclosed.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60901055/

Astrazeneca AB & Anr.

Emcure Pharma Ltd. & MSN Labs Ltd.

IN 209907: species patent for Ticagrelor.
IN 247984: crystalline form patent.
IN 272674: formulation patent.

Drug Ticagrelor, a triazolo-pyrimidine derivative used to prevent thrombotic cardiovascular events.

AstraZeneca filed two civil suits against Emcure and MSN claiming that the defendants manufactured, sold, offered for sale and exported generic Ticagrelor tablets that infringed the above patents

- 2 December 2019: IN 209907 Expiry
- 2019: Suits filed against Emcure and MSN

Delhi High Court declined to grant the interim injunctions sought by AstraZeneca.

- Generic versions were launched by Emcure and MSN under brand names (e.g., Ticaplat and Tiare) allegedly infringing AstraZeneca’s patents.
- Despite prima facie infirngment proven, the injunction was refused since the species patent IN 209907 had already expired on 2 December 2019 (shortly before the hearing) and the defendants’ products were already in the market.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1024712/astrazeneca-ab-anr-vs-emcure-pharmaceuticals-limited/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#google_vignette

Prof. Dr. Cluadio De Simone & Anr.

Actial Farmaceutica SRL. & Ors.

U.S. patent No. 5,716,615: De Simone Formulation

Probiotic nutritional formulation blending multiple bacterial strains in specific ratios for therapeutic uses

Plaintiffs sued defendants (including Actial Farmaceutica, CD Pharma India, VSL Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma etc.) seeking permanent injunctions.

- 10 February 1998: U.S. Patent Filing
- 9 Febraruary 2015: U.S. Patent expiry
- 2004-2014: Know-how agreements entered
- 2019: Suit instituted in Delhi HC

- Suit dismissed since plaintiffs failed to disclose any cause of action.
-No statutory or common-law right under Indian law to enforce a confidential trade secret / know-how in the alleged invention once the patent (elsewhere) has expired and no patent ever existed in India

Patent rights are purely statutory and exist only under the Patents Act for a limited period; once those rights lapse or are absent in India, there is no residual proprietary right to prevent others’ commercial exploitation.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e73c0f29fca1959329fe97d

IN 307249: System/Device Process for Classification of Various Materials

material classification system and process used in industrial wet processing

Cde Asia Ltd. filed an infringement suit for making, manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling and importing an allegedly infringing product “FM 120 CONEXUS” that the plaintiff claimed fell within the scope of its patent IN 249 and registered design No. 262629

- 3 September 2013: Patent Application filed
- 12 February 2019: Patent granted
- 6 March 2019: Suit filed
- 2019: Defendant application under order 7 rule 10 and 11 of CPC

Application under Order VII R.10 & R.11 CPC was dismissed.
Infringement suit filed within one year of the grant of the patent was maintainable and not premature, and
Court had territorial jurisdiction since the defendants were carrying on business and offering the impugned products for sale in Delhi.

While post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) may prevent final crystallisation of rights, it does not bar filing an infringement suit within one year of grant; the Supreme Court did not decide such a bar.
Section 48 rights of the patentee is not suspended merely because a post-grant opposition is pending.

https://lawlens.in/doc/a7da58e4-e963-4af0-a123-08f08a95c876

Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors.

IN247381: junior patent covering the pharmaceutical compound Apixaban
IN243917: senior patent with a broad Markush claim (nitrogen-containing heterobicycles as Factor Xa inhibitors)

Apixaban, a small-molecule anti-coagulant drug marketed by BMS (e.g., under Eliquis), used for preventing blood clots in conditions such as atrial fibrillation and thrombosis

Bristol-Myers Squibb and its affiliates sued Natco Pharma for infringement of IN 247381 by allegedly planning to manufacture/sell a generic Apixaban product (“Apigat”)

Delhi High Court refused to stay the infringement suit on the basis that the prior Hyderabad suit did not raise the same issues or relief.

Infringement action and a prior declaratory suit with different reliefs, even involving overlapping patents do not automatically trigger a stay under Section 10 CPC if the issues and reliefs are not directly and substantially the same.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190315997/

Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings

IN 247381: Lactam-Containing Compounds and Derivatives Thereof as Factor Xa Inhibitors

Apixaban, a small-molecule anti-coagulant drug marketed by BMS (e.g., under Eliquis), used for preventing blood clots in conditions such as atrial fibrillation and thrombosis

The plaintiffs had obtained an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in infringing Apixaban products. Despite the same, plaintiffs alleged that defendants continued selling and offering generic Apixaban prompting them to file multiple contempt applications seeking action against willful disobedience of the injunction order.

- 4 April 2011: patent granted
- 20 January 2020: Interim injunction order
- 2020: Contempt applications filed

- Held that the plaintiffs had not proved willful disobedience of the interim injunction.

- Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC: Enforce injunction orders and are quasi-criminal in nature; proving contempt requires showing wilful disobedience beyond reasonable doubt
- Plaintiffs’ allegations were examined in light of timing (whether actions occurred before the injunction came into effect) and context (supply chain and distributors).

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6378f9781db9f9794a9fa522

Assistant Controller of Patents

National Phase Application no. IN/PCT/2001/01652/CHE
(PCT/US00/14753)

Computer Software search apparatus method

Yahoo challenged the Controller of Patents’ refusal to grant a patent on the invention

-20 April 2007: Application published
- 22 October 2007: Pre-grant opposition filed by Rediff.com India
- 30 March 2009: Controller Refusal
- Subsequent to 2009: Appeal initially not numbered & held non-maintainbale
- July 2010: Madras HC direction to Appellate Board to hear the appeal.

- The Appellate Board upheld the Controller’s refusal to grant the patent.
- Claimed invention falls within the exclusion under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. Essentially a business method implemented through a computer programme.

- IPAB applied s.3(k) exclusion strictly. Held core of Yahoo’s invention was a competitive bidding business method for search ranking, not a patentable technical innovation beyond the excluded subject matter.
- IPAB accepted method included some technical features, but they were inseparable from the underlying business method, and therefore insufficient to meet the statutory requirement.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/574990d8add7b016e0f04c06
Madras HC Order: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/626315/

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

IN 774: Erlotinib Hydrochloride, an Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) inhibitor used in the treatment of cancer

Anti-cancer drug used particularly for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and pancreatic cancer.

Roche sued Cipla Ltd. alleging infringement of its patent IN 774 by Cipla’s generic version (Erlocip).
Cipla counter-claimed to revocate IN 774 on multiple grounds.

- 13 March 1996: Indian Patent Application filed
- 23 February 2007: Patent IN 774 granted
- 2008: Roche's original suit for injunction
- 24 April 2009: D.B. interim appeal

- Counter-claim to revoke IN 774 was dismissed.
- Court did not grant the permanent injunction against Cipla to restrain sale of Erlocip

Patent was near expiry (in March 2016), and Cipla had already been selling the generic. Inequitable and impractical to injunct sales so near to expiry.
Section 3(d) prohibits patenting mere forms of known substances without enhanced efficacy. Cipla failed to prove that IN 774 (as granted) was a mere new form of a known substance lacking enhanced efficacy.
Observed that Roche did not fully comply with disclosure obligations under Section 8 of the Patents Act (by failing to disclose related foreign applications), which is a ground for revocation.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57798471/

MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd

IN 229051: pharmaceutical composition comprising a combination of Valsartan and Sacubitril (or their pharmaceutically acceptable salts)

Combination cardiovascular drug

Novartis filed suit for patent infringement for MSN manufacturing, selling, importing, offering for sale, exporting or dealing in the infringing pharmaceutical composition.
MSN sought dismissal of the suit on procedural grounds then filed written statement and counter-claim for revocation of the patent.

- 13 February 2009: Suit patent granted
- 16 January 2023: Patent expiry
- 07 October 2020: Novartis infringement suit filed
- 19 October 2020: Interim injunction granted
- December 2020: Suit transferred to commercial court and then to High Court.

Appeal dismissed and interim injunction upheld.
Novartis had a prima facie case of imminent infringement of its valid and subsisting patent IN 229051.
It would result in irreparable harm if the injunction were denied

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50678263/

MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd

IN 283133: Pyrrolopyrimidine Compounds and Their Uses.

Pyrrolopyrimidine compounds: Includes kinase inhibitors used in oncology and their therapeutic applications.

Novartis filed a civil suit against MSN Laboratories for allegedly threatening to infringe the exclusive rights conferred by IN 283133 by potentially manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products that fall within the patent scope.

- 24 May 2007: Patent Filing
- 24 May 2027: Patent expiry
- 28 February 2022: Public Notice by Department of Pharmaceuticals (DOP)
- 15 March 2022: Defendants's response to DOP

Suit remained pending; Government party deleted and directions given.
- MSN Laboratories was directed to file its written statement addressing the infringement allegations.
- Permissible activities under Section 107A of the Patents Act are not impediments to lawful conduct.

- Public notice by the Department of Pharmaceuticals does not override patent rights.
- If MSN obtains a manufacturing licence, it must give advance notice before commencing commercial manufacture/launch of the patented drug.
- Section 107A of the Patents Act permits certain acts without infringement including the preparation of information for regulatory approval.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76500866/

Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design

Indian Patent Application no.3853/COL/MP-2008: Composition comprising human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives, methods of use and methods of preparation

Extraction of Human embryonic stem cells derived from human embryos (2 to 7 days old), and compositions and methods involving them

The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Controller’s decision rejecting the patent application.

- 22 September 2008: Patent Application filed
- 24 September 2018: Order of the Controller rejecting the application under S.3(b)

Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal.
Observed conformity with ethics and National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research (2017) and refused to interfere with the Controller’s expert evaluation.

- Invention necessarily involves destruction of human embryos and that its industrial or commercial use is contrary to public order and morality, fitting within the statutory exclusion.
- ethical and moral safeguards in the Patents Act are substantive and can justify rejection even for biotechnological inventions despite the technological value that they hold.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110863457/

FMC Corporation & Ors.

IN 298645: Method for Preparing N-Phenylpyrazole-1-Carboxamides

Crop Protection: Patent relates to organic chemical intermediates and processes for preparing Cyantraniliprole, a widely used insecticidal active ingredient in crop protection.

FMC Corporation & others filed a civil commercial suit against Natco Pharma Limited for alleged infringement of Claim 12 of IN’645 in connection with Natco’s Cyantraniliprole formulation.

- 9 July 2018: Patent granted
- 06 December 2025: Patent Expiry

The Court refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of FMC.

- Natco had raised a credible challenge to the validity of Claim 12 of IN’645: Claim 12 of IN’645 is prima facie anticipated by earlier patent IN’104, which pre-dates the suit patent; and international counterpart WO’226 was published before the priority date of IN’645 and could anticipate the claimed intermediate.
- Gillette Defence: Since the intermediate compound was arguably known from earlier patent filings (IN’104 and WO’226), Natco might legitimately use it once the patent on IN’104 had expired, invoking a Gillette defence against infringement claims

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61565219/

Hemant Karamchand Rohera

Controller General of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Indian Patent Application no. 201921036412: A Medical Therapeutic Device

Medical therapeutic device said to regulate physiological parameters (e.g., influence on blood pressure and glucose levels.

Hemant Karamchand Rohera, filed a Petition challenging the refusal order passed by the Controller of Patents rejecting the above patent application.

- 18 February 2021: Refusal Order
- 2022: Petition in High court filed

Bombay High Court allowed the petition and set aside the Impugned Order that had rejected the patent application.
Remanded the patent application for fresh consideration before another controller.

- ss. 14 and 15 of Patent Act 1970 the Court reaffirmed that before refusing a patent application, the Controller must communicate specific objections to the applicant; Provide an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies; and give a meaningful hearing opportunity.
- Refusal must be speaking and reasoned, demonstrating how prior art or insufficiency relates to the claimed invention

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114869226/

Hi Tech Chemicals Limited

Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Indian Patent Application no.382/CHE/2012

Anti-stick coating for slag pots: chemical composition applied to steel plant slag pots to prevent adherence of molten slag

Appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Deputy Controller’s order dated 05 July 2023, which rejected Hi Tech’s Post-Grant Opposition to Patent No. 311984

- 01 February 2012: Patent priority
- 31 November 2013: Complete application filing
- 30 April 2019: Patent granted
- 05 July 2023: Post-grant opposition rejected

- Madras High Court set aside the Deputy Controller’s rejection of the post-grant opposition.
- Remanded to Patent Office for fresh consideration by a different controller

Even if parallel proceedings (infringement/validity in Karnataka High Court) are pending, the Controller must adjudicate the post-grant opposition statutorily and cannot stay proceedings merely because another forum is seized of a related matter.
Patent continues in force pending the remanded proceedings.

https://www.latestlaws.com/amp/judgements/madras-high-court/2025/november/2025-latest-caselaw-8678-mad/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The Controller Of Patents

Indian Patent Application no. 202117034705: combination of rifampicin and resveratrol.

drug composition in defined proportions that reduce side-effects and treatment of neurodegenerative conditions

Appeal filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 challenging the Controller’s refusal order of patent application under s.3(i) Patent Act, 1970

- 2021: Patent Application
- 21 December 2025: Controller Refusal order

- Controller's order Set aside
- Matter remanded for fresh consideration by the controller.

- Section 3(i) of the Patents Act which excludes methods of treatment from patentability does not automatically exclude product claims, even it is described for therapeutic use.
- Scope of invention must be determined primarily from the claims under Section 10(4)(c) and not only from the preamble or illustrations in the specification.
- Mode of administration or therapeutic purpose in the preamble does not convert a product claim into a method claim.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194784346/

Indian Patent Application no.1867/DEL/2010

Yarns and fabrics that are “air rich” by virtue of having pores distributed uniformly across the radial cross-section of the yarn.

Appeal challenged the Controller’s refusal order under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970

- 24 September 2010: Patent Application
- 21 June 2018: First Examination Report
- 5 January 2021: Respondent refusal order

- Delhi High Court set aside the refusal order
- Remanded to the Patent Office for a fresh examination by a different Controller

- Controller’s analysis of prior art references failed to specifically explain how each cited document teaches or motivates all claimed limitations.
- Auxiliary claims, which included alternative formulations aligned with corresponding granted patents outside India, should be considered in the fresh examination.

https://www.latestlaws.com/amp/judgements/delhi-hc/2025/november/2025-latest-caselaw-5885-del/

Softgel Healthcare Private Limited

Pfizer Inc., FoldRx Pharmaceuticals LLC, PF PRISM IMB B.V. & Wyeth LLC

US patent No. 9,777,0,441: Crystalline forms of Tafamidis 61 mg

Chemical Composition to treat transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy

US District Court (Delaware) issued Letters Rogatory requesting assistance from Indian courts to obtain documents and evidence from Softgel.
Pfizer & others filed petitions in Madras High Court to enforce these Letters through appointment of a Local Commissioner.
Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowed execution of the Letters appointing a commissioner.
Softgel Healthcare appealed the order on multiple grounds

- 13 May 2024: US District Court (Delaware) issued Letters Rogatory requesting assistance from Indian courts to obtain documents and evidence from Softgel.
- 28 January 2025: Single Judge Madras HC decision

- Madras High Court allowed Softgel Healthcare’s appeals
- Letters Rogatory were vague and lacked the required specificity under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.
- Softgel had the right to refuse to give evidence under Article 11 of the Convention

Comity and international cooperation via the Hague Evidence Convention are subject to domestic law limits.
India’s reservation under Article 23 of Hague Convention, which bars execution of foreign requests for pre-trial discovery.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44206983/

Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC & Anr.

Assistant Controller of Patents

Indian Patent Application no. 1498/DELNP/2011
PCT/US2009/056058
US 61/094,381

Sustained-release formulations using non-aqueous carriers: pharmaceutical injectable microsphere formulations of the active ingredient exenatide in a non-aqueous carrier.

Appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Assistant Controller’s order

- 01 May 2011: Application filed
- 29 March 2017: First Examination report
- 13 November 2017: Hearing before controller
- 10 July 2018: Rejection order

Delhi High Court upheld the Controller’s rejection, dismissing the appeal.

- Claimed invention lacked inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) in view of prior art documents D1–D4, and did not involve a patentable invention.
- Court found the lack of inventive step sufficient to justify the rejection, without requiring further assessment of therapeutic efficacy.

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68724112025CAP762022_202231.pdf

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.

Specific amino acid substitutions and fatty acid acylation to create long-acting GLP-1 analogues with improved therapeutic profiles

Interim injunction application filed by Novo Nordisk A/S alleging infringement of patent by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. and another.
Defendants also filed a revocation petition challenging the validity on multiple grounds under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.

- 18 March 2005: Priority Date
- 20 Marc 2006: PCT Filing date
- 05 September 2014: Patent Grant
- 02 March 2026: Patent Expiry
- 26 May 2025: Suit filed
- 29 May 2025: First listing and Undertaking

The Court declined to grant an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing the Semaglutide compound in India until patent expiry.

- Defendants had raised a credible challenge to the validity of the Suit Patent under Sections 64(1)(a), (e), and (f) of the Patents Act.
- Evergreening concerns (attempting to extend monopoly by subsequent patents on the same molecule) are treated under Indian patent law, particularly through Sections 64, 107 and 13

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39726850/

TVS Motor Company Ltd. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs

The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs

Indian Patent Application no. 2119/CHE/2014

Vehicle Frame Assembly relating to a frame structure for two-wheeled vehicles

TVS challenged an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application under s. 2(1)(ja)

- 28 April 2014: Patent Application filed
- 27 December 2019: First Examination Report
- 02 January 2023: Hearing
- 27 June 2024: COntroller Rejection

- The Madras High Court set aside the impugned rejection order.
- Remitted the matter for proper analysis

- Court’s order indicates that the Controller must provide a speaking, reasoned order, especially where and multiple objections (e.g., inventive step, sufficiency) were interlinked
- Prior art relevance must be clearly explained in relation to claim limitations.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/65d340c1cda6612875fc1945

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

semaglutide-based drug: active ingredient in Ozempic, also used in Wegovy

Novo Nordisk sought an interim injunction to restrain Sun Pharma from manufacturing, selling, distributing or dealing in semaglutide-based products in India; and any manufacture or export pending patent expiry

-10 December 2025: Delhi HC order on Sun Pharma
- 20 March 2026: Novo Nordisk Patent Expiry in India

- Delhi High Court allowed Sun Pharma to manufacture and export its semaglutide product from India to jurisdictions where Novo Nordisk does not hold patent rights.
- Court prohibited sale or distribution of the semaglutide product within the Indian domestic market until Novo Nordisk’s patent expires.

- Sun Pharma gave an undertaking to the Court that it will Export only (no domestic sales); operate only in markets where no conflicting patent exists; and file an affidavit reaffirming the undertaking and detail its exports.

IN 221536: Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex and a Process for Producing Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex

Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM) — an intravenous iron therapy used in treating iron deficiency anemia

Vifor alleged that unauthorised manufacture, import, and commercialisation of generic FCM products and single judge bench refused the interim injunctions. appeal against the said order.

- 2021-22: Suit filed
- October 2023: Patent grant
- 24 July 2023: Single judge judgment

- Appellate bench held a product-by-process claim must be examined on the basis of the novelty and inventiveness of the product itself, not on the particular process recited.
- Vifor was entitled to seek injunctive relief based on exclusive rights to the product FCM under Section 48(a) of the Patents Act.

- Product-by-process claims are essentially product claims where the product is described by a process when structural description is difficult or complex.
- Protection extends to the product itself if it is novel and non-obvious, despite the process being used by an alleged infringer.

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/JIS24072023SC2612021_210538.pdf

Maharaja Appliances Limited

Liquid heating vessels (specifically an electric kettle with a temperature control device) — involving thermally sensitive over-heat controls

Strix Limited alleged that the Defendant was importing and selling electric kettles incorporating a temperature control device that infringes the plaintiff’s patent.

- 9 June 1995: Patent applied
- 11 November 2005: Patent granted
- 1996: Plaintiff first sold product globally and in India from 2002.
- 2008: Suit filed and Interim Application

Granted an interim injunction restraining Maharaja Appliances, its agents, and all persons acting for or on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, or importing the Maharaja Whiteline electric kettle during suit pendency

- Court noted differences between the European patent and Strix’s invention. Strix’s sensors were linked directly to the element, provided double-pole protection, and operated independently, unlike the cited prior art.
- Since plaintiff had prima facie established both patent validity and infringement, and the defendant had not made out a credible challenge, an injunction was appropriate.

IN 231895: multi-sensory device/system for producing heating, cooling and aromatic effects synchronized with scenes in a movie

4D cinema technology: electronic and software system that decodes coded signals from movie media and actuates environmental effects

- Defendants were alleged to be infringing the patent by installing and operating a similar multi-sensory 4D theatre system in the defendant's theatre.
- Counterclaims were filed for revocation of the patent on grounds including prior art, obviousness, and insufficiency of disclosure.

- 13 March 2009: Patent Granted
- 2010: Suit Filed
- 9 May 2014: Interim Hearing

Court declined to grant an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
Trial Expedited in the main case and defendants asked to furnish statement of accounts, file an undertaking to pay damages, and deposit through bank draft.

- Patent validity is open to challenge at any stage, and the grant of a patent does not create conclusive presumption of validity on interlocutory applications.
- Similarity in outcome is insufficient to conclude infringement, technical similarity of means and structure must be established.
- Commercial use / working of patent can influence the balance of convenience in interim matters.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47594754/

Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings

IN 247381: Lactam-Containing Compounds and Derivatives Thereof, as Factor Xa Inhibitors

Oral anticoagulant drugs: Apixaban, an anti-coagulant marketed by Bristol Myers Squibb

Indoco appealed the interim injunction orders passed against them by the single judge and permission to sell approximately. 58,000 strips of APIXABID were manufactured prior to the injunction order.

- 24 December 2019: Single Judge injunction order
- 28 August 2020: Interlocutory Application reserved
-17 September 2022: Patent term expiry as per single judge

Refused to grant Indoco permission to sell or clear its pre-injunction stock of APIXABID during the pendency of the appeal.

- Cannot grant relief that would reverse single judge status quo order and permit sale merely on public interest grounds.
- If a patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonable price, the statutory remedy under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 (compulsory licence) is available.

https://lawlens.in/doc/e7ce1510-02f5-4c8a-a9a1-050b20e92af6

TVS Motor Company Limited

Automotive engines: involving Digital Twin Spark Ignition (DTS-i) technology

Bajaj alleged infringement of their patented DTS-i engine in its 125 cc Flame motorcycle by TVS.
TVS had filed suit under Section 106 of the Patents Act alleging groundless threats of infringement.

- 16 July 2002: Bajaj Patent Filing
- Late 2007: Suit filed in Madras High COurt
- 16 Febrauary 2008: Interim Injunction granted by Single Judge
- 18 May 2009: Division bench set aside HC order
- 2009: Appeal to Supreme Court

- Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Bajaj against the Division Bench order of the Madras High Court without going into the merits of patent infringement.
- Directed the parties and the HC to expeditiously conclude the trial of the infringement on a day-to-day basis.

Highlighted that interlocutory injunctions should not overshadow merits and final adjudication.
Signaled to litigants that delays or tactical Interlocutory orders (like injunctions) are less desirable.

Vringo Infrastructure Inc. & Anr.

Indiamart Indermesh Ltd. & Ors.

Wireless communications: method and apparatus for handover decision in cellular networks

Alleged that the defendants were infringing their patent by manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale, and installing Base Station Controllers that practised the patented method and device without authorisation.

- 9 August 2012: Assignment of Patent from Nokia to Vringo
- 3 February 2014: Ad-interim Ex parte Injunction granted
- 2014: Interim Application for confirmation

- Delhi High Court refused to confirm the ad-interim injunction previously granted on 3 February 2014.
- Effectively vacated the ex parte stay.
- Directed defendants to provide security / bank guarantees and to file accounts and quarterly sales data.

- Patents Act does not presume patent validity; the patentee must establish a prima facie case of infringement when seeking interim relief.
- Injunction is not automatic when infringement is alleged. Patentee must show that non-grant of injunction would cause irreparable harm

https://www.latestlaws.com/amp/judgements/delhi-hc/2014/august/2014-latest-caselaw-3521-del/

IN 172675: improved tamper proof seal for directly locking the container
Patent of Addition no. 178879: modification of the main seal with additional outwardly directed vanes

Mechanical tamper-proof locking devices

Alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling infringing seals marketed as "SEAL TECH"

- 6 May 1991: Main Patent application filed
- 12 March 1998: Patent of additiona sealed
- June 2004: Alleged infringment and cease and desist notice issued
- 11 October 2005: Suit filed

- Court did not grant ex-parte or interim relief despite prima facie infringement.
- Defendants ordered to maintain accounts of sales of the allegedly infringing products and provide them for inspection.

- Court acknowledged, prima facie, that the essential features, function, operation principle and result were similar, suggesting potential infringement.
- However, emphasis was on plaintiff’s delay in filing suit after becoming aware of infringement, and incomplete or misleading disclosures.
- ss. 54 to 56 of Patents Act, 1970: Only the patentee of the main invention can apply for and be entitled to a patent of addition.
- Validity of a patent of addition cannot be attacked solely because it lacks inventive step relative to the main invention.

http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Studentmodules/Judgments/MANU-MH-0549-2008-BLR.pdf

Patent Process: a process for the preparation of an infectious bursitis vaccine, a biotechnological/biological invention involving live virus

Dimminaco A.G. patent application was rejected by the Assistant Controller of Patents on the ground that the claimed process did not amount to “manner of manufacture” under Section 2(1)(j) and therefore appealed the decision under S.116 to the HC.

- Late 1990S: Filinga and Examination by Patent Office
- 27 December 1999: Examiner Objection and Controller Rejection
- September to October 2001: Calcutta HC hearing

- Quashed the impugned order dated 27 December 1999 of the Controller.
- Remanded the patent application to the Controller for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

- It held manufacturing process is any new and useful method of making something that is vendible or industrially applicable. The vaccine qualifies this criterion.
- Inventions involving biologically derived products and processes should not be excluded merely because they yield living organisms in the end product.

https://spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Dimminaco-A.G.-v.-Controller-of-Patents-Designs.pdf

A writ petition was filed challenging the refusal to grant a patent, along with allowing a pre-grant opposition.

- 9 January 2007: Patent application filed.
- 4 December 2008: Pre-grant opposition by Cipla
- 24 July 2008: Controller refusal after pre-grant opposition

- Declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226, challenging the Controller’s order refusing to grant the patent following pre-grant opposition.
- Alternative statutory remedies exist under the Patents Act (Section 117A). Thus writ jurisdiction should not be exercised where such efficacious remedies are available.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/574990d5add7b016e0f04b50

When is a patent deemed to be “granted” under the Patents Act: the date of the Controller’s order granting the patent on file, or the later date when the patent certificate is sealed and entered into the Register?

- Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge.
- Patent is “granted” on the date of the Controller’s grant order
- The appellant’s opposition filed on 24 August 2006 was time-barred

- Interpretted Section 25(1), Rule 55(6), Section 43 and Rule 88 and section 15.
- The operative moment of the grant under the Patents Act is the date on which the Controller’s order rejecting opposition and granting the patent is passed.
- Sealing the patent certificate and entry in the Register are ministerial formalities, not the substantive grant.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e5de4b014971117c0bc#:~:text=Controller%20can%20refuse%20the%20grant,the%20grant%20of%20a%20patent.