Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Can a Pre-Grant Opposition Survive After Patent Grant?

Text graphic with the phrase “Almost There!” in playful, rounded white font outlined in red, centered on a dark blue background.

The Delhi High Court confirmed that once a patent grant order is signed, a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) is no longer valid. This case involving Vertex Pharmaceuticals affirms that the signature date is definitive, regardless of later administrative delays.

AbbVie’s Patent Refusal Upheld over Impermissible Shift from Treatment to Product Claims

3D rendering of a blue virus particle surrounded by yellow antibodies, illustrating an immune response at the microscopic level

The Delhi High Court has dismissed AbbVie’s appeal regarding the refusal of their patent application for an anti-cMet antibody-drug conjugate. The court found the proposed amendments exceeded permissible scope under the Indian Patents Act.

When Dye Becomes Decisive: Patent Infringement, Equivalence, and Estoppel

A farmer on a tractor ploughing a sunlit field, with a backdrop of green hills and a molecular structure overlay, symbolising agricultural innovation and chemical formulation.

In a patent infringement case, the Delhi High Court denied Crystal Crop Protection’s request for an interim injunction against Safex Chemicals. The dispute in the case centred on a herbicidal formulation containing Clodinafop, Metribuzin, and a dyeing agent. The Court held that the dye was an essential claim element and that Safex’s dye-free products did not infringe, even by equivalence. It also invoked prosecution history estoppel, noting that Crystal’s own claim amendments precluded a broad claim interpretation.

Blackberry’s Patent Refusal Set Aside by Delhi High Court

City skyline at night with glowing Wi-Fi symbols and connection lines, representing wireless communication and smart city connectivity

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Indian Patent Office’s refusal of Blackberry’s communication patent application. Citing a lack of reasoning and violation of natural justice principles, the Court directed a fresh evaluation of the amendments and remaining objections under the Patents Act.

Compulsory Music License for Events: Delhi HC Rules Against PPL’s Licensing Practices

Image shows corporate event in a banquet hall, where people are dressed in business attire, having drinks and enjoying music.

In a case between Al Hamd Tradenation and PPL, the Delhi High Court ruled that Al Hamd is entitled to a compulsory license because PPL refused to grant a license for a small event at a reasonable fee. The Court stated that Section 31(1)(a) applies to all works, including sound recordings. It observed that demanding an unreasonably high fee constitutes a refusal to license. The Court will now decide the appropriate royalty and licensing conditions.

Captain Morgan Prevails Over Captain Blue in Trade Mark Dispute

Two sailing ships at sea with oversized bottles (blue and amber) on their decks; text reads "Who’s the Real Captain?" with a pirate hat graphic.

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Diageo’s “Captain Morgan” trademark, rejecting the registration of “Captain Blue” due to deceptive similarity and absence of bona fide use. The decision reinforces the importance of prior use and consumer recognition in trademark law.

Trademark Opposition Fails Without Territorial Use Evidence

Illustration with a curious face and large question mark, asking “Can you lose a trademark without using it everywhere?” on a blue-green gradient background.

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the registration of the ‘JAI HANUMAN’ trademark, underscoring the importance of territorial use evidence in opposition cases. Despite claiming prior use, the appellant failed to show usage in South India, leading to the Court affirming the Registry’s decision.

Supreme Court Upholds Free Speech in Wikimedia Case, Sets Aside Takedown Order

In a clear endorsement of constitutional protections in the digital realm, the Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court directive requiring removal of Wikipedia content related to a defamation suit. The Court held that such pre-emptive takedown orders, absent a compelling constitutional basis, violate the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21, and cannot be sustained within India’s legal framework.

Decades of Himalaya’s Goodwill Shield PILEX Trademark from Deceptive Use

Text says “PILEX” by Himalaya Stands Tall Against Imitators, with mountains in the background and a hand holding a pill on the right.

The Calcutta High Court’s Intellectual Property Rights Division upheld Himalaya’s trademark “PILEX”, citing decades of goodwill and market presence. With the defendants ceasing use and offering an unconditional undertaking, the Court ordered relief and reinforced the legal significance of brand protection in pharmaceuticals.

What Have You Been Smoking? Personal bias has no place in Tobacco patent evaluation

A cigarette crossed out with a red prohibition sign, flanked by comic-style text bubbles reading "WHAT?" on the left and "WHY!" on the right, against a blue background

The Calcutta High Court has criticised the arbitrary rejection of a tobacco syrup patent by the Indian patent office, urging objective analysis over personal bias. It held that Section 3(b) must not be misused to deny legitimate inventions without proper legal scrutiny and evidence.