The Madras High Court has reversed the Patent Office’s rejection of Novozymes’ patent for enzyme granules in animal feed, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning in refusal orders. The decision clarifies the application of inventive step and Section 3d in Indian patent law.
Read more about Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s RefusalCategory: Case Reviews
Court says infringing brand ‘Double Kabooter’ Jaa Jaa Jaa
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the DOUBLE KABOOTER trademark, citing prior use and deceptive similarity with DABAL KABUTER BRAND. This case highlights the importance of accurate trademark claims and evidence in Indian law.
Read more about Court says infringing brand ‘Double Kabooter’ Jaa Jaa JaaSnack Wars: Haldiram’s Battle for Brand Supremacy
This post explores Haldiram’s successful legal action against trademark infringement, resulting in permanent injunctions and damages. It discusses the judicial recognition of Haldiram as a well-known mark, reflecting broader implications for brand protection in India.
Read more about Snack Wars: Haldiram’s Battle for Brand SupremacyCancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over Eltrombopag
The Delhi High Court Division Bench set aside an injunction against Natco Pharma in the Novartis Eltrombopag patent dispute. The judgment provides key guidance on patent validity challenges and the requirements under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act in pharmaceutical cases.
Read more about Cancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over EltrombopagThe Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the order
The Delhi High Court refused to remove trademark officers’ names from an order regarding delayed opposition filings. The judgment emphasises the need for transparency and adherence to limitation periods in trademark matters.
Read more about The Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the orderSufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Ericsson vs Lava addresses sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act. The Court found Ericsson’s patents to be sufficiently disclosed, rejecting Lava’s revocation claims.
Read more about Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part XLights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADY
The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against KSC Industries, restraining them from using the EVERYDAY mark, which was found similar to Eveready’s well-known EVEREADY trademarks. The Court considered visual, structural, and phonetic similarities and recognised the potential for consumer confusion.
Read more about Lights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADYTransparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds
The Delhi High Court has reiterated the need for transparency in patent refusal orders, stating that clear grounds must be provided. The judgment highlights the importance of detailed reasoning and independent assessment of each claim in patent applications.
Read more about Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear groundsNovelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX
The Delhi High Court’s analysis in Ericsson vs. Lava addresses the novelty and inventive step of key standard essential patents for 3G and EDGE technology. This post summarises the court’s findings on the technical advancements and legal standards applied in evaluating Ericsson’s patents, maintaining a clear and factual legal perspective.
Read more about Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IXNovelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII
This article provides a detailed analysis of the novelty and inventive step of Ericsson’s AMR patents as examined in Ericsson Vs. Lava. The Delhi High Court’s findings illustrate how Indian patent law standards are applied to complex telecommunication inventions.
Read more about Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII