Madras High Court | Intellepedia

Madras High Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Suit, Allows Coexistence of Technologies

The Madras High Court ruled on a patent infringement dispute involving Arumugam Rajendra Babu and Ashok Leyland over battery-swapping technology. The Court found no infringement and dismissed both the suit and counterclaims, allowing both parties to coexist. The ruling addressed prior art, novelty, and the scope of patent protection in the electric vehicle sector.

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.

Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent application for AI-integrated persona augmentation. The Court ruled that the invention lacked sufficient technical detail, inventive step, and patent-eligible subject matter under the Patents Act. It upheld the Controller’s decision, emphasizing the absence of tangible technical effects and clear disclosure requirements.

Trademark Licensing vs. Assignment: Madras HC on ROYALCHEF Dispute

The Madras High Court ruled that the licensing of the ROYALCHEF trademark does not restrict the licensor’s rights. In a dispute between Quality Chef Agro Foods and ADF Trading, the Court analyzed trademark ownership, assignment, and licensing agreements. It concluded that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no exclusive right to the mark and could not prevent the licensor from exporting goods under the same brand.

Dhanush v. Nayanthara: Netflix denied an exit pass in copyright violation case

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Wunderbar Films in its copyright dispute with Netflix over the unauthorized use of behind-the-scenes footage. Netflix’s applications challenging jurisdiction and seeking rejection of the plaint were dismissed. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction was valid, pre-suit mediation was not mandatory due to urgency, and combining statutory and common law remedies was permissible.

Evaluation of Technical Advancement and Compliance with CRI Guidelines under Indian Patent Law

The Madras High Court allowed Idemia Identity & Security France’s appeal, setting aside a refusal order under Section 3(k) for a cryptography patent. The Court ruled the order as a non-speaking one and in violation of natural justice. It directed fresh consideration of the matter, emphasizing technical contributions and adherence to CRI and European guidelines.

Madras HC Overrules Procedural Rejection in France Telecom’s Patent Case

The Madras High Court allowed France Telecom’s writ petition, setting aside the procedural rejection of its patent application examination request. The judgment clarifies the treatment of agent errors under Indian patent law and upholds procedural fairness.

Monster Energy falls short of “Energy for the ‘Trademark’ Journey”

The Madras High Court rejected Monster Energy’s trademark application, finding “Energy for the Journey” was generic and lacked distinctiveness. The decision clarifies the legal threshold for trademark registrability under Indian law.

Madras High Court Overturns Patent Refusal under section 3(d), Reiterates Importance of Reasoned Orders and Natural Justice

The Madras High Court set aside a patent refusal under section 3d, citing lack of procedural fairness and insufficient reasoning. The Court directed reconsideration, underscoring the necessity of reasoned orders and respect for principles of natural justice in patent proceedings.

Classic Fireworks’ Trademark goes up in smoke, Eagle wins over Garuda

The Madras High Court set aside the registration of the Garuda mark, citing a likelihood of confusion with SIECO’s prior Eagle trademark. The court found that the marks’ similarities could mislead consumers and rejected the defence of acquiescence.