High Court of Delhi | 28 February 2014 CS (OS) 3193 of 2012 & CC No. 49 of 2013, IA Nos. 10389-90 of 2013, 10638 of 2013, 20025 of 2013, 18788 of 2013 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Muralidhar BACKGROUND The plaintiffs in the present matter are Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Teva”), Yeda Research and Development […]
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. Natcopharma Limited Read More »
Delhi High Court | Mukta Gupta J. | 12 July 2018 Case Numbers: CS(COMM) 24/2016; CS(COMM) 436/2017 Justice Mukta Gupta BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., a Netherlands-incorporated multinational corporation, instituted two suits alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 184753 relating to DVD video player technology. The patent, dated 13 February 1995, pertains
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Read More »
Delhi High Court | Dr. M.K. Sharma J. | 26 May 1999 Case Number: Suit No. 2391/1998 | Citation: AIR 2000 Delhi 23 | 80 (1999) DLT 56 | 1999 IV AD (Delhi) 613 BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Standipack Private Limited, claimed to be the patentee of a pouch designed for storage and dispensing of liquids
Standipack Private Limited & Another v. M/s Oswal Trading Co. Ltd. & Ors. Read More »
Among the most practically significant yet doctrinally complex provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 is Section 107A, inserted into the Act by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002. In the two decades since its insertion, Section 107A has become one of the most contested and commercially consequential provisions in Indian pharmaceutical patent law, engaging questions that
Few obligations in Indian patent law are as frequently misunderstood, as consistently neglected and as consequential in their implications as the requirement to work a patent in India. The Patents Act, 1970 does not treat the grant of a patent as the end of the patentee’s obligations to the public it treats it as the
Working of Patents in India – Section 83, Form 27 and Consequences Read More »
Court: High Court of Calcutta | Date of Decision: 11 April 1996 Citation: AIR 1996 CAL 367; (1997) 1 CALLT 123 (HC); 100 CWN 562; (1996) 100 Cal WN 562; (1997) 2 CivLJ 302 BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Hindusthan Lever Limited, is a leading Indian manufacturer of soaps, detergents, cleaning preparations, chemicals and fertilisers, holding over
Hindusthan Lever Limited v. Godrej Soaps Limited and Others Read More »
India’s accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty on December 7, 1998, fundamentally transformed the landscape for both inbound and outbound patent filings. For Indian applicants seeking protection across multiple jurisdictions, the PCT provides a single-window mechanism of unmatched procedural efficiency. For foreign applicants targeting the Indian marketone of the world’s most consequential pharmaceutical, technology and
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 12 December 2019 W.P.(C) No. 7 of 2014 & CM APPL. 40736/2019 Bench: Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11867 Background Ferid Allani, a citizen of Tunisia, filed a patent application bearing No. IN/PCT/2002/00705/DEL through the Patent Cooperation Treaty route, seeking grant
If the specification is the heart of a patent application, the claims are its spine. Every structural decision in the specification how the invention is described, what embodiments are disclosed, which prior art is distinguished ultimately serves the claims, because it is the claims alone that define the legal boundary of the monopoly that the
Claim Drafting for Indian Patents – Types, Scope and Strategy Read More »
The specification is the heart of a patent application. Every other element of the application the claims, the abstract, the drawings derives its meaning and its legal validity from the specification and the quality of the specification determines, more than any other single factor, both the prospect of grant and the value of the patent
Specification Writing in Indian Patent Practice – Complete and Provisional Read More »