The Madras High Court remanded Pinnacle Engines Inc.’s patent application for their opposed piston engine, addressing inventive features overlooked by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court emphasized the significance of the crank offset and opposite crankshaft rotation in reducing friction and vibration, directing a reassessment by a different officer.
Read more about Court Cranks the Clock Back on Opposed Crankshaft Patent RefusalAuthor: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala
Dr. Kalyan Kankanala is a practicing intellectual property (IP) attorney and author. He is a senior partner at BananaIP Counsels, a well-known IP firm based in Bangalore, India. His writings cover a range of topics relating to IP law, business, and policy, and he has authored several books and articles in the field. He has been contributing to this blog since 2007.
The views expressed here are his own and do not represent those of BananaIP Counsels or its members.
Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrack
The Delhi High Court confirmed the refusal of Mahesh Gupta’s patent application for a Portable Vehicle Management System, citing the lack of an inventive step in light of prior arts D4 and D5. The decision underscores important principles of patentability, including mosaicing, hindsight bias, and the criteria for non-obviousness.
Read more about Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrackMarc Salon’s Design Makes the Cut: Court Grants Injunction
The Delhi High Court has confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Marc Salon in a case against GM Sales involving claims of passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair trade practices. The ruling underscores the protection of Marc Salon’s unique furniture designs and highlights the significance of intellectual property rights in the industry.
Read more about Marc Salon’s Design Makes the Cut: Court Grants InjunctionDiabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny
On June 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court granted Glenmark an interim injunction against Gleck Pharma in a trademark dispute over “ZITA-MET” and “XIGAMET”. The court found that the similarities between the trademarks could confuse consumers, leading to potential health risks, and applied strict standards to prevent such confusion.
Read more about Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark ScrutinyAuthors, Copyright and Royalty Share : The Calcutta High Court gives clarity
The Calcutta High Court’s landmark decision in Vodafone v. Saregama clarifies the royalty rights of authors of literary and musical works. The ruling states that authors are entitled to royalties regardless of when their works were created or the nature of copyright ownership transfers.
Read more about Authors, Copyright and Royalty Share : The Calcutta High Court gives clarityKannada Lyricist Hamsalekha Wins Copyright Case Against Saavn
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of lyricist Hamsalekha in a copyright dispute against Saavn. Saavn argued that Hamsalekha doesn’t have the right to sue because he assigned his rights to IPRS, a copyright society. The Court disagreed as Hamsalekha retained the right to claim authorship and seek proper attribution even if IPRS licensed his works.
Read more about Kannada Lyricist Hamsalekha Wins Copyright Case Against SaavnAd Agency sues Jindal Steels for Copyright Infringement
An advertising agency, Wieden+Kennedy, sued Jindal Steel for copyright infringement. Wieden+Kennedy claims Jindal Steel’s commercial copied their work product, despite not paying for the full project. The court found some similarities but didn’t rule on infringement. Since the contract included arbitration clause, the court directed the parties to settle through arbitration and asked Jindal Steel to deposit a security sum to prevent the commercial’s broadcast.
Read more about Ad Agency sues Jindal Steels for Copyright InfringementExacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts
In this infringement and passing off case filed by Sun Pharma against Glenmark, the Court was asked to determine if the trademark “INDAMET” infringes upon the trademark “ISTAMET XR CP”. Sun Pharma’s “ISTAMET XR CP” was registered in 2014 by its predecessor in title, and Glenmark’s trademark, INDAMET, was registered in 2021.
Read more about Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant PartsSEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5
In this case, the Court has crystallized and reiterated several patent principles relating to patentability under Section 3(k), novelty, inventive step, infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), Exhaustion, FRAND royalty determination, and so on. Along with other principles, the Court has also outlined the principles for grant of actual costs.
Read more about SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3
Several aspects of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Licensing were discussed in the Ericsson Vs. Lava Case, and in this post, we will discuss three of those: Royalty Stacking, Hold Up, and Hold Out.
Read more about Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3