In the case of M/s Hi Tech Chemicals Limited vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., the Madras High Court examined whether documents labeled as additional evidence could be admitted after the hearing was fixed in a post-grant patent opposition. The Court looked at the patent rules, and held that private documents do not qualify as “publications” under Rule 62(4), and are therefore not admissible after the hearing date was fixed.
Read more about Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent OppositionsTag: Madras High Court
The Bounce Trademark Dispute: Generic Marks in Salon Services
The Bounce trademark dispute highlights the complexities of enforcing rights over generic marks in the salon industry. The Madras High Court’s interim order underscores the importance of trial evidence in determining exclusivity and infringement in descriptive trademark cases.
Read more about The Bounce Trademark Dispute: Generic Marks in Salon ServicesMadras HC Awards ₹20 Lakhs Compensation in Amma Memorial Digital Project Dispute
The Madras High Court resolved the Amma Memorial Digital Project dispute by awarding reasonable compensation for partial software development and concept creation. The judgement clarified copyright ownership, absence of profit-sharing rights, and the basis for determining damages in software-related project collaborations.
Read more about Madras HC Awards ₹20 Lakhs Compensation in Amma Memorial Digital Project DisputeCan Claims Presumptively Inherit the Priority Date of a Provisional Application?
In Rallis India Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Others, the Madras High Court refused to assume that claims automatically inherit the priority date of a provisional, especially where the crucial EC formulation emerges only in the complete specification. The decision pushes the Patent Office to treat priority and prior art questions as matters for analysis, not default settings.
Read more about Can Claims Presumptively Inherit the Priority Date of a Provisional Application?Can You Copyright a Product Photo When Design Is Registered? Madras HC Clarifies
The Madras High Court has clarified that a product photograph can be copyrighted even if the product’s design is registered. The Court held that Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act does not bar copyright in a photograph of a registered design, as the two are distinct forms of intellectual property.
Read more about Can You Copyright a Product Photo When Design Is Registered? Madras HC ClarifiesCopyright Ownership in Insolvency: How IP Rights Acquired Through Compromise Prevail Over Legal Heirs
The Madras High Court confirmed that copyright ownership in insolvency acquired through a court approved compromise takes precedence over claims by legal heirs. The plaintiff was granted a permanent injunction, accounting of profits, and costs, while compensatory damages were denied due to insufficient evidence
Read more about Copyright Ownership in Insolvency: How IP Rights Acquired Through Compromise Prevail Over Legal HeirsCourt Orders Transfer of Design Cancellation Petition from Controller’s Office
Madras High Court pulls a split dispute into one forum, ordering transfer of the design cancellation petition to be heard with the passing-off suit under its IPD.
Read more about Court Orders Transfer of Design Cancellation Petition from Controller’s OfficeCRI Patentability Affirmed: Madras High Court Rules in Favor of Syngene
Madras HC upholds CRI patentability in Syngene’s case, ruling novel hardware isn’t a prerequisite for protection under Section 3(k).
Read more about CRI Patentability Affirmed: Madras High Court Rules in Favor of SyngeneFrom Refusal to Reconsideration: A Second Chance for Zhejiang’s Hair Dye Patent
Madras High Court gives Zhejiang’s hair dye patent a new lease on life, quashing an unreasoned refusal and directing a fresh, reasoned hearing.
Read more about From Refusal to Reconsideration: A Second Chance for Zhejiang’s Hair Dye PatentAmgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court
Madras High Court backs Amgen on lyophilized peptibody formulations, rejecting Section 3(d), 3(e) and inventive step objections. Grant directed, with claims narrowed to supported sequences.
Read more about Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court