patent infringement | Intellepedia

Dolby v. Lava: INR 20 Crore Deposit Ordered in SEP patent infringement case

Delhi HC directs Lava to deposit ₹20 crore as pro tem security in Dolby’s SEP infringement suit involving AAC audio tech patents.

Who Bears the Patent Credibility Challenge Burden?

A photo featuring Auguste Rodin's sculpture The Thinker positioned outdoors against a backdrop of green trees and blue sky. On the left side, there is a dense leafy tree, while on the right, a classical stone building with columns is partially visible.

Mold Tek filed a case for infringement of its patents relating to tamper-proof plastic lids, and secured an interim injunction. The Commercial Court vacated the injunction, placing the burden of establishing validity on the patentee. The Delhi High Court reversed this, clarifying that it is the defendant’s burden to raise a credible invalidity defence under Section 107.

Patent Upheld, Design Dismissed: Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation – Part 1: Infringement & Relief

Illustration showing two people in discussion on the left and a justice scale on the right, with the text in between: “Dura-Line to Jain Irrigation: We Patented It. You Replicated It.” on a light green background.

This post analyzes the Delhi High Court’s decision in Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation, where the Court found patent infringement but rejected the design infringement claim.

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.

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.

Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History

The Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction in a patent dispute over a fuel cap, citing ambiguous claims and prosecution history. The judgment highlights the need for precise claim drafting and careful interpretation in patent litigation.

Clarifying Product-by-Process Patent Claims in India – West Bengal Chemicals v. GTZ

The Calcutta High Court has clarified the standards for product-by-process patent claims in India, focusing on the necessity of expert evidence in infringement cases. The decision in West Bengal Chemicals v. GTZ provides important guidance for pharmaceutical patent litigation.

Cool interim order for ITW’s pre-conditioned air patent, but Competitor’s airport deals allowed to continue

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim injunction in the ITW pre-conditioned air patent dispute, focusing on inventive step and claim construction under Indian law. While ITW secured a ban on future infringing acts, Dabico’s existing airport deployments were allowed to proceed.

Boehringer secures Patent Injunction for its Diabetes Drug – Empagliflozin

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted Boehringer Ingelheim an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences, preventing the manufacture and sale of Empagliflozin during the suit. The case provides insights into the judicial approach towards pharmaceutical patent disputes in India.

Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

This post discusses how the Delhi High Court assessed infringement of standard essential patents in Ericsson v. Lava, evaluating claim charts and the two-step infringement test. The court’s structured approach clarifies key aspects of SEP litigation in India.