Patents Act 1970 | Intellepedia

Mold-Tek Wins Patent Infringement Injunction Against Former Distributor

Patent infringement interim injunction India : Delhi High Court upholds tamper-evident packaging patents in Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd., 2026

In Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court found both tamper-evident packaging patents valid and prima facie infringed, granted an interim injunction, and rejected the Gillette Defence, in a patent infringement case where the rival’s CEO was once the plaintiff’s own authorised distributor.

Delhi HC Orders Xiaomi to Pay ₹272 Crore in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Dispute

Standard essential patent pro tem security order - Delhi High Court directs Xiaomi to deposit ₹272 crore in Malikie Innovations and BlackBerry cellular SEP dispute

The Delhi High Court has ordered Xiaomi to deposit ₹272 crore as pro tem security in a standard essential patent infringement suit filed by Malikie Innovations Ltd., which holds BlackBerry’s cellular SEP portfolio. Did Xiaomi’s own move in a Chinese court inadvertently seal the outcome?

All the Trappings! Bombay High Court Bars Second Patent Appeals

Illustration of closed courthouse gates symbolising the bar on second patent appeals in India under Section 100A CPC — Bombay High Court ruling on patent appeal maintainability

When the Bombay High Court dismissed a patent applicant’s appeal after a Single Judge upheld the Controller’s refusal, the applicant tried a second round before the Division Bench. The court’s answer, drawing on Section 100A CPC and the “trappings of a Civil Court” doctrine closes a significant procedural door for Indian patent litigants.

Dung Deal: Delhi High Court Remands Cattle Manure Battery Patent

Sodium-ion battery with hard carbon electrode material - Delhi High Court post-grant opposition ruling on cattle manure-derived battery patent

The Delhi High Court has set aside a post-grant revocation of a patent covering a cattle manure-derived hard carbon process for sodium-ion batteries, finding that the Deputy Controller failed to apply the mandatory five-step inventive step test. The case raises sharp questions about procedural rigour in post-grant opposition proceedings under the Patents Act, 1970.

Design Is Not a Shield: Delhi High Court on Patent Infringement in the Packaging Industry

Patent infringement packaging India - technical blueprint of tamper-evident pail closure system stamped infringement confirmed. Delhi High Court ruling on design registration vs patent protection in Mold-Tek v. Neway Industries

In Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd v. Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd, the Delhi High Court examined two cross-appeals arising from a patent infringement dispute over tamper-evident packaging closures. The central question: can a design registration protect a product against a patent infringement claim? The court’s answer carries serious implications for the packaging industry.

No Reasons, No Refusal – and No Absolute Bar Anymore: Bombay HC on Atomic Energy & Nuclear Patent Rejections

Radioactive hazard symbol on yellow and dark grey striped background, illustrating patent rejection atomic energy India

Must the government explain why it refuses a patent on atomic energy grounds? In Huntington Alloys Corporation v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court held that even an absolute statutory power demands a reasoned order – and the SHANTI Act 2025 has since rewritten the rules on nuclear patentability entirely.

AI Inventorship and the DABUS Refusal in India: Patent Opponent’s Submissions in the Patent Office Order

In Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor of a food container invention. Although the Indian Patent Office refused the pre-grant opposition filed by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala in a separate order, its order refusing the application substantially Includes/mentions the opponent’s statutory and comparative-law submissions on inventorship and proof of right.

Patent Opposition Board Report: Can you challenge it before the final order?

A close-up of a formal legal document stamped in red with the word "PRELIMINARY," resting on a dark wooden desk. The document shows sections headed "Findings of Fact," "Conclusions of Law," and "Recommendation," with a blank date line at the bottom. A gavel is partially visible in the upper right corner.

When is a patent opposition board recommendation ripe for a writ petition, and when is it simply too soon? The Madras High Court tackled this question in a dispute between E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC and Zydus Healthcare Limited over a cancer-treatment patent, with significant implications for patent opposition board recommendation practice in India.

Fair Hearing First: Delhi HC Sets Aside Patent Refusal Over New Grounds in Order

A blue wooden background with the words “drilling holes into patent refusals?” in black text, alongside an orange power drill angled toward the text.

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a Wirtgen GMBH patent application, finding that new objections introduced for the first time in the final order – without prior notice – violated the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.

Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition Are Independent Proceedings; Composite Disposal Unsustainable

Bold text reading “NO SHORTCUTS,” with “NO” in red and “SHORTCUTS” in white, set against a dark background featuring Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the Controller cannot collapse examination and pre-grant opposition into a single composite order to sidestep a Section 14 hearing. The decision reinforces natural justice and procedural discipline in Indian patent prosecution.