Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited’s (Crompton) appeal has been dismissed, upholding the order that restrains Crompton from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in electric irons under the impugned “PEBBLE” trademark, due to V Guard Industries Limited’s (V Guard) application.Continue Reading Whether “CROMPTON PEBBLE” and “PEBBLE” are similar or identical?
The Delhi High Court, on February 24, 2025, passed an order in Arcturus Therapeutics v. Controller of Patents[1], remanding the case back to the patent office for reconsideration by the Assistant Controller of Patents on merit.Continue Reading Reject patent application on merit, not for failing to follow procedure: Delhi High Court
Continue Reading Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions 2025
The case of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. is a landmark judgment in Indian patent law, particularly concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and intellectual property enforcement. This judgment resolves three interconnected suits filed by the Plaintiff Philips relating to the infringement of Indian Patent No. 218255, which pertains to a “Method of Converting Information Words to a Modulated Signal”.Continue Reading A Legal Analysis of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr.: Patent Enforcement and Infringement Liability
In its recent judgment dated January 15, 2025, in C.O. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 38/2022 Macleod Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs The Controller of Patents and Anr., the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) tackled some rather tricky but interesting questions, which have surfaced time and again in heavily contested patent infringement and invalidation proceedings in recent years, particularly in the pharmaceutical space.Continue Reading Proceedings seeking revocation of a Patent not same as those seeking a finding of Invalidity
In a recent judgement, the Delhi High Court, while hearing an appeal against an order of the Controller of Patents and Designs, which refused a patent grant, distinguished between a technical method and a business method while examining the technical contributions/ effects of an invention. In the impugned order, the Controller refused a patent application titled “Methods and Devices for Authentication of an Electronic Payment Card using Electronic Token” on the grounds that the claimed invention falls under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act (“Act”), categorising it as a business method and a computer programme, per se.Continue Reading Inventions addressing transaction security patentable under Indian Patents Act
In a recent judgement dated November 28, 2024, the Madras High Court while hearing an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”), quashed an impugned order that the Controller of Patents and Designs (“Controller”) had passed, on grounds of non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice.Continue Reading Is it acceptable to file divisional application on the day of grant of parent application?
In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court recently addressed crucial issues surrounding trademark opposition proceedings in Coaster Shoes Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr vide a judgment dated August 16, 2024. The Court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the responsibility of the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Registrar”) to ensure completeness of service in trademark disputes.Continue Reading Procedural Fairness and Service Errors: Lessons from the Coaster Shoes Trademark Dispute
The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a BlackBerry Limited (hereinafter “Appellant”) appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patent’s refusal of its patent application in the field of wireless communication titled “Administration of Wireless Systems[1]”. The application was for an invention that manages wireless systems by configuring wireless client devices using both primary and secondary wireless servers. The ld. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejected the application on the ground of non-patentability under Section 3(k) [2], stating that the subject patent application was directed towards set of instructions and which were purely functional and lacking any inventive hardware features. Continue Reading Invention that is a series of instructions does not meet the criteria for patent protection under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act
In Mahesh Gupta v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court affirmed the refusal order issued by Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (“Respondent”) against a patent application filed for “Portable Vehicle Management System”(“Subject Patent”). The Respondent refused the patent application on the grounds that it did not meet the inventive step requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970, and failed to qualify as an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act.Continue Reading Portable Vehicle Management System Denied Patent