Gaurav Mishra | Intellepedia

Breaking Beams, Breaking Records: Delhi High Court Awards ₹152 Crore in Antenna Patent Infringement Suit Against Rosenberger

Featured image for blog post on patent infringement damages in India - illustration of a cellular antenna tower contrasting symmetrical and asymmetrical beam patterns, representing Indian Patent No. 240893 upheld by the Delhi High Court in the landmark CCA v Rosenberger ruling awarding ₹152 crore in damages.

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Indian Patent No. 240893 for asymmetrical beam antenna technology in Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH, rejecting all revocation grounds. The court awarded ₹152 crore in patent infringement damages – could this signal a new era for patent enforcement in India?

Fair Hearing First: Delhi HC Sets Aside Patent Refusal Over New Grounds in Order

A blue wooden background with the words “drilling holes into patent refusals?” in black text, alongside an orange power drill angled toward the text.

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a Wirtgen GMBH patent application, finding that new objections introduced for the first time in the final order – without prior notice – violated the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.

Speak Up or Step Aside: Bombay HC on What a Post-Grant Opposition Order Must Do

Two hands pull a rope taut from opposite sides against a dark background, with a turmeric coated root tied at the center.

In Saurabh Arora v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Bombay High Court set aside a post-grant patent opposition order that dismissed a challenge under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act without recording a single reason. The court found complete non-application of mind in an order affecting a Cadila Pharmaceuticals patent – but will it survive a fresh look?

Two Piscos, One Bar: Delhi High Court Division Bench Confirms Dual GI Identity for Peru and Chile

Two bottles and two glasses of Pisco labeled "Peruvian Pisco" and "Chilean Pisco" are displayed on a table set against a scenic vineyard backdrop at sunset, symbolizing the geographical indication dispute between Peru and Chile.

What began as a routine GI application in 2005 ended twenty years later with Delhi High Court’s Division Bench settling one of Indian IP law’s most contested geographical indication disputes. Can Peru hold “PISCO” exclusively – or must two countries share a five-letter word?

KENT can’t do it! Court proves it’s not a big FAN of Kent’s Brand Stretch, backs prior use

In the case of Kent Ro Systems Limited v. Kent Cables Private Limited, two businesses using the same mark KENT clashed over who could sell fans under that mark. One side relied on its strong reputation in water purifiers and home appliances. The other relied on earlier adoption of KENT for electrical goods and evidence of fan sales over several years. The Division Bench upheld the interim restraint against Kent RO and left the final rights to be decided at trial.

Steering the divide: Steer Engineering’s divisional application denied by Court

A surreal scene of a car steering wheel standing upright in a narrow trench cut through a dry grassy field under a partly cloudy sky at sunset reflecting Steer Engineering’s failed patent appeal and the Court upholding the refusal of the divisional application.

Madras High Court upheld the refusal of Steer Engineering’s divisional patent application, affirming lack of inventive step and overlap with the parent filing.

No double riding! Court clarifies on patent revocation plea in case involving Philips

The image shows a Businessman balancing with one foot on each of two small wooden boats in open water, illustrating the attempt by one of the Parties in this case to seek patent revocation through multiple forums.

In the case of Versuni Holding B.V. Trading as Preethi v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, the patent holder had already sued for infringement before the Delhi High Court. The alleged infringer then filed a written statement there seeking invalidity and revocation of the patent, but also filed a separate revocation petition before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed that separate revocation petition and accepted the objection to its maintainability.

Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki: When MOTION met TRANSFORMOTION, Similarity missed the bus!

Promotional graphic for Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki featuring a red-and-blue transforming robot on the left and the words “AUTOBOTS! TRANSFORM...” in bold white and orange text on a muted grey background.

In the case of Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., Volkswagen opposed Maruti Suzuki’s application for TRANSFORMOTION in Class 12 on the ground that it was too close to Volkswagen’s earlier mark 4MOTION. The court examined the marks in the setting in which they were used, noted that one was tied to a vehicle technology and the other to an advertising campaign, and concluded that the two marks did not create deceptive similarity.

Amendment of claims at Appellate Stage under section 59 of the Patents Act

Banner graphic displaying the text “Amendment of Claims at Appellate Stage” with a central icon representing a heat exchanger, on a blue and tan background.

In the case of Daikin Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Indian Patent Office refused Daikin’s patent application relating to a shell and plate heat exchanger on the ground of lack of novelty over a prior art document. During the appeal before the High Court, Daikin sought permission to amend claim 1 by incorporating additional limitations already disclosed in the specification. The court examined whether such an amendment could be permitted at the appellate stage under Section 59 of the Patents Act.

Can Anyone Own the “Forest”? Delhi High Court Applies Anti Dissection Rule in Forest Essentials case

Banner image of a dense forest with sunlight filtering through tall trees and a path running through it, featuring the text “Who owns the FOREST?” in a green label.

The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant an interim injunction in the dispute between Forest Essentials and Baby Forest Ayurveda. The court held that “BABY FOREST” was not deceptively similar to “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” and that the word **“FOREST,” being a dictionary word, could not be monopolised without strong evidence of secondary meaning. Applying the anti dissection rule, the court concluded that the marks must be assessed as a whole and declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s refusal of interim relief.