Patent Litigation | Intellepedia

Delhi High Court Patent Injunction: Aquestia Wins Against Automat Industries

A 3D-rendered digital image depicting a legal and engineering theme. The foreground shows a judge's gavel resting on legal documents with metal fittings and coins scattered nearby. In the background, mechanical valve systems are integrated with justice scales, symbolizing a legal dispute over industrial components, likely fluid control valves. The scene combines elements of law and technology, representing a patent conflict or court ruling in an engineering context.

Delhi High Court grants patent injunction to Aquestia, stopping Automat from selling Hydromat valves over suspected patent infringement.

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.

When Delay Becomes Denial: Calcutta High Court Overturns Patent Rejection

The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in BASF SE v. Joint Controller of Patents warrants attention for multiple reasons, particularly as it addresses...

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.

Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Novartis’s Ceritinib patent against Natco’s challenge, addressing divisional application issues and allegations of suppression. The injunction against Natco remains in force, reinforcing the enforceability of Novartis’s patent rights.

Madras High Court Upholds Patent Validity in Embio Limited vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

The Madras High Court affirmed the validity of Malladi Drugs’ patent for chiral beta-amino alcohols, highlighting the invention’s novelty and inventive step. The judgment clarifies key principles on patent revocation and the definition of a “person interested” under Indian patent law.

Unreasoned Post Grant Opposition Decision Set Aside by the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court set aside a post grant opposition decision in a patent dispute for inadequate reasoning and lack of independent analysis. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration before a different officer to uphold procedural fairness.

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.

Court criticizes Patent Office for using outdated CRI Guidelines

The Madras High Court condemned the Patent Office’s reliance on outdated CRI guidelines in Microsoft’s patent application case, highlighting the significance of technical effect in computer related inventions. The court allowed the appeal and directed a new evaluation.

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.