Case Reviews | 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.

TV9’s News Clips Fair Use or Copyright Abuse

In the case of TV9, namely Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v Google LLC and Others, the broadcaster faced multiple YouTube copyright strikes for using short clips of real world events in its news programmes. TV9 argued that the clips were minimal, used only to report current events, and in several instances came from licensed sources, while some disputed clips were alleged to be used without licence only in a limited and illustrative manner. The court examined whether that use crossed the line into infringement.

Court Rules GUIs Eligible for Design Registration : No More Blanket Rejections

A person selecting options on a holographic graphical user interface showing happy, neutral, and sad rating icons, with the positive option selected.

The Calcutta High Court clarified that GUIs are not per se excluded from design registration under the Designs Act, 2000, strengthening GUI protection in India.

In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Telomerase Therapy Patent Barred under Section 3(i)

Banner image with a yellow geometric background, a light bulb illustration in the centre, and bold black text reading: In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Patent Refused under Section 3(i).

Labeling a test as ‘screening’ doesn’t make it patentable if it decides treatment. In Geron Corporation’s case, measuring telomere length to decide who receives telomerase therapy made the method a diagnostic process, blocking its patent.

Employment First, IPL Later, Copyright Nowhere

Copyright Authorship and Moral Rights Dispute

In the case of Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani & Ors., the dispute arose from claims over the IPL Awards event, its presentation, and related written material. The plaintiff said that he had developed the event, reduced it into writing, and was entitled to authorship credit, moral rights, and commercial benefits, but the court rejected those claims after examining the employment relationship, Section 17(c), Section 57, the nature of the material, and the MOU.

Copyright Lives On, Even Before Probate

In the case of Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd v. Smt. Archana Debnath & Anr., the dispute arose from alleged publication and sale of copyrighted literary and artistic works of a deceased author after expiry of an earlier publishing arrangement. The publisher argued that the suit could not proceed because probate had not yet been granted and because an earlier suit had already been dismissed for default, but the court rejected both objections at the interim stage.

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.