Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Snack 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.

Cancerous 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.

The 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.

Sufficiency 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.

Lights 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.

Transparency 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.

Novelty 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.

Novelty 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.

The 20-Year Patent Term from the Date of Filing is Constitutionally Valid

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the 20-year patent term from the date of filing under Section 53 of the Patents Act. The judgment clarifies the legislative scheme and confirms there is no inconsistency or arbitrariness in the provision.

A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

The Delhi High Court analysed the validity of eight Ericsson patents under Section 3(k), following Lava’s challenge. Except for the first patent, the Court upheld the remaining patents, finding them to involve technical advancements beyond mere algorithms or mathematical methods.