+91-80-26860414

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellectual Property

BananaIP Counsels > Intellectual Property (Page 11)

Trade Secret Case Law Jurisprudence in India- 1

The featured image is a screen grab of the first slide of the presentation titled "Trade Secrets and Information Security". This presentation was delivered by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala at CISCO, Bangalore

First Publication Date: 21st December 2009 Trade Secret in India is not protected under any specific law but Indian Courts from time to time have recognized that confidential business information, such as customer lists, details of suppliers, pricing policies, product launch time-schedules, management marketing, know-how, designs, drawings, model, specifications, surface data, notes, improvements, technical information and so on may qualify as trade secrets. The jurisprudence that has developed in relation to trade secrets and confidential information is by way of case laws. In light of this, following and successive posts will be devoted in bringing out the case law jurisprudence relating to...

Continue reading

Interesting patent pending invention

Characters are pulling a rope written PATENT on top as this article is about Indian Patent Law Basics

First Publication Date: 21st December 2018 Most technology and engineering companies perceive development of a good portfolio of patents as a key function that enables them to differentiate themselves from their competition, and maintain strategic advantage in their business. Companies adopt various patent generation, protection and management strategies to develop a portfolio of patents. Strategies used by companies for generation of IP include, identifying inventions generated within the company, tying up with universities to generate IP, and acquiring third party IP. Acquiring third party IP can benefit the company if the company successfully identifies good inventions generated by third party, such as...

Continue reading

Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning a Corporation etc.Vs Unichem Laboratories

The image depicts the cover of the presentation with title of Patent Infringement Presentation by Dr. Kalyan C Kankanala

First Publication Date: 20th December 2009 The case related to a patent in respect of the manufacture of new sulphonyl-ureas, salts of those compounds and of anti-diabetic preparation containing such compounds. One of the chemical compounds comprised in the said patent was Tolbutamide, and since 1957 the patent holder had been marketing the same as an anti-diabetic drug in India and all over the world under the trade mark "Rastinon". The patent holder filed an infringement suit against the Respondents claiming that the manufacture, preparation and sale of Uni-Tolbid tablets or Tolbutamide by the Respondents infringes its patent. In response to...

Continue reading

Laxmi Dutt Roop Chand Vs. Nankau

The image depicts the cover of the presentation with title of Patent Infringement Presentation by Dr. Kalyan C Kankanala

First Publication Date: 18th December 2009 In this case, the Appellant, Laxmi Dutt Roop Chand, was the patent holder of a patent relating to the process of manufacture of hollow wares, such as 'lotas', 'batwas', 'degchis', 'batlois' and so on. The Appellant filed a patent infringement suit against the Respondents, Nankau and others, claiming that their process of manufacturing hollow wares violates the patents held by the Appellant and prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from manufacturing the hollow wares using the process. In response to the infringement suit of the Appellants, the Respondents claimed non-infringement and counter-claimed for...

Continue reading

Scope of Government Use Exemption in India

Characters are pulling a rope written PATENT on top as this article is about Indian Patent Law Basics

First Publication Date: 14th December 2009 In a recent case involving Chemtura Corporation, Union of India and Others, the Delhi Court interpreted the scope of government use exemption under Section 47 of the Patents Act. The patent holder in the case, Chemtura, filed a patent infringement suit against Union of India and others with respect to an invention concerning side bearing pad assembly and sought a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The infringement action was filed against Government of India and a consortium that supplied the product falling within the scope of the Chemtura’s patent under a railway...

Continue reading

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs. Hindustan Metal Industries

Characters are pulling a rope written PATENT on top as this article is about Indian Patent Law Basics

First Publication Date: 15th December 2009 This case can be considered to be the most important case in inventive step jurisprudence in India. Though the case was decided in 1978, the principles laid down in the case are followed even today and have been codified in the Indian Patent Act. The patent in the case related to a means for holding utensils for turning purposes . According to a preferred feature of the invention disclosed in the patent, the pressure end of the spindle was rotatably mounted and for that purpose it comprised an independent piece engaged by a hollowed end in...

Continue reading

Bajaj/TVS Litigation

The image depicts Bajaj Logo.

First Publication Date: 14th December 2009 The litigation between Bajaj and TVS, which was very widely reported in the news showed the value of patents for gaining business advantage. The case briefs with respect to the litigation between the parties have been provided hereunder for the reader’s benefit. The cases relate to grant of injunction by the Court. Bajaj Auto Vs. TVS Motor Company Bajaj Auto Ltd. ("Bajaj") acquired a patent with regard to an invention relating to the use of twin spark plugs for efficient combustion of lean air fuel mixture in small bore ranging from 45 mm to 70 mm internal...

Continue reading

Ex-parte injunction vacated due to lack of prima-facie case of infringement

The image depicts the sign board of the Delhi High Court.

First Publication Date: 9th December 2009 Asian Electronics Ltd v/s Jumbo Electric Company (Delhi High Court, 12th November, 2009) Facts of the case: Asian Electronics (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) is the holder of an Indian patent 193488, which talks about a kit for converting a fluorescent lighting fixture from inductive operation to electronic operation. The corresponding US patent can be seen here. The plaintiff stated that Jumbo Electric Company (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was manufacturing and selling the identical conversion kits for lighting units with electronic blast operation embodying claims of the plaintiff’s patent and such a conversion unit...

Continue reading

Patentability of new form, use or property – Section 3(d)

The image depicts the cover of the presentation with title of Concepts related to Patentability by Somashekar Ramakrishna

First Publication Date: 11th December 2009 Section 3(d) of the Patents Act provides that mere Discovery of a new form or new use or new property of a known substance is not patentable. The discovery of a new form of a known substance will be patentable only if it results in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance. Salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure forms, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of a known substance will be considered to be the same substance and are not patentable, unless they differ significantly in properties with...

Continue reading

Spring Design looses on getting preliminary injunction in its battle against Barnes and Noble

The image depicts Barnes and Nobles' nook.

First Publication Date: 10th December 2009 As informed in an earlier post on 8th November, 2009, release of "Nook" by Barnes and Noble is clouded over by the allegations made by Spring Design for breach of non disclosure agreement, trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition. In light of the given backdrop, Spring Design filed for a motion of preliminary injunction to prevent Barnes and Noble from marketing and selling its e-reader, "Nook" in the market. Deciding on the matter, Court has denied the motion for a preliminary injunction halting the sale of Barnes and Noble's "Nook". Court, on December 01, 2009 held that...

Continue reading