Judicial decisions interpreting the Patent Act ,1970 including landmark rulings
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 7 November 2014 | FAO(OS) No. 16 of 2014 Background Koninklijke Philips Electronics, the Dutch multinational corporation, had filed an application for a patent in India on 13 February 1995 for an invention described as a “method for converting information words to a modulated signal.” The […]
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics Read More »
Delhi High Court | Decided: 13 April 2012 I.A. No. 18464/2011 in CS (OS) No. 1421/2005 Bench: Justice Manmohan Singh Citation: 2012 PTC DEL 50 380 | 2012 SCC Online Del 2092 | 2012 CTC IP 3 6 Background AstraZeneca UK Ltd. (plaintiff) was the registered proprietor of the trade mark MERONEM, used for pharmaceutical
AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Read More »
Madras High Court | O.S.A. Nos. 132 and 133 of 2010 | Decided on 4 October 2010 Coram: Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice K.K. Sasidharan Background This dispute arose between two of India’s biggest two-wheeler manufacturers and it was not just about who copied whose technology. It was also about who gets to speak
Delhi High Court | Decided: 8 February 2011 W.P. (C) No. 801 of 2011 Bench: Justice S. Muralidhar Background Nippon Steel Corporation, a Japanese corporation with world-class technology in the field of medium-high grade steel, was engaged in intensive research and development in steelmaking and related engineering. On 9 February 2007, Nippon Steel filed an
Bombay High Court | Decided: 19 December 2007 Bench: Justice A.H. Joshi Citation: (2008) 3 MLJ 599 Background Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd., the plaintiff-appellant, was the registered holder of two patents – “GSWR” and “Spiral Lock Systems” bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177 respectively – relating to rope and wire systems used in infrastructure projects. The
O.S. No. 3 of 1999, decided on 17 May 2010 (Kerala High Court) Background Low Heat Driers Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated in 1987 and engaged in manufacturing drying equipment for agricultural produce, claimed to have developed a novel device for smoke drying of agricultural products, particularly ribbed rubber sheets. The invention was attributed to
Supreme Court of India | Civil Appeal No. 6718 of 2013 | Decided: 2 June 2014 Bench: Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar & Justice A.K. Patnaik Citation: AIR 2014 SC 2210 | (2014) 15 SCC 360 Background Dr. Aloys Wobben, a German scientist-engineer and one of the world’s largest manufacturers of wind turbines, held approximately 2,700
Dr. Aloys Wobben & Another v. Yogesh Mehra & Others Read More »
Bayer Corporation v. Union of India through the Secretary, Writ Petition No. 1323 of 2013 (Bombay HC, 15 July 2014); AIR 2014 Bombay Background The petitioner, Bayer Corporation, is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Indiana, United States of America. As a result of its research and development activities, the petitioner
M/s UCB Farchim SA v. M/s Cipla Ltd. & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 332 of 2010 (along with connected matters), Delhi High Court, decided on 8 February 2010 Background Writ petitions before the Delhi High Court raised an important procedural question under Indian patent law: whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Ors. v. Monsanto Technology LLC & Ors., FAO (OS) (COMM) 86/2017 & 76/2017, Delhi High Court, decided on 11 April 2018. Background This case arose from a long-standing dispute between Monsanto Technology LLC and Indian seed companies led by Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Monsanto held Indian Patent No. 214436, which related to
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Ors. v. Monsanto Technology LLC & Ors. Read More »