-
Continue reading →: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Injunction in NOCIL’s 4-ADPA Process Patent and Trade Secret Dispute
By Jigyasa Pareek The Calcutta High Court in NOCIL Ltd. vs Finorchem Ltd. & Anr. [IP-COM/25/2024, GA-COM/1/2024, decision dated October 7, 2026] granted interim injunction in favour of NOCIL in a suit concerning alleged infringement of its process patents for manufacturing 4-ADPA and breach of confidentiality by a former employee…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Rejects Challenge to Territorial Jurisdiction in Patent Infringement Suit
By Jigyasa Pareek The Delhi High Court in Innovation Glass India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Blick System India Pvt. Ltd. [CS(COMM) 456/2023] considered the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a patent infringement suit where the Defendant was based outside Delhi and the alleged infringing project was also…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Grants Rs. 152 Crore Damages in Communication Components Antenna vs Rosenberger
By Jigyasa Pareek The Delhi High Court in Communication Components Antenna Inc. vs Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Ors. [CS(COMM) 653/2019] delivered a detailed judgment concerning the validity and infringement of patent number 240893, entitled “Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency”. The suit concerned technology relating to split-sector antennas used in cellular…
-
Continue reading →: No Mechanical Notices for Pre-Grant Opposition: Madras High Court Emphasises Application of Mind Under Rule 55(3)
By Jigyasa Pareek The Madras High Court, in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. vs Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (IPD) No. 24 of 2025; decision dated February 12, 2026], considered the effect of successive pre-grant oppositions on the prosecution of a patent application and the obligation of the Controller…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Holds Section 25(1) Pre-Grant Opposition Hearing Cannot Substitute Statutory Hearing Under Section 14
By Jigyasa Pareek The Delhi High Court, in Fresenius Kabi Ipsum SRL vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 7/2025; decision dated August 31, 2026], set aside the order refusing patent application number IN 201611009993 relating to an improved process for the preparation of sugammadex using a…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Upholds Refusal of Patent Application Based on Mosaicking of Prior Art
By Jigyasa Pareek The Delhi High Court, in Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. vs Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 118/2022; decision dated August 7, 2026], dismissed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, against the refusal of patent application no. 1435/DELNP/2012, entitled “Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs”. The…
-
Continue reading →: Prima Facie Finding of Patent Infringement Must Be Supported by Reasons: Karnataka High Court
By Jigyasa Pareek The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, in Priya Industries & Anr. vs Vishwanatha K. [COMAP No. 351/2026; decision dated July 22, 2026], set aside the ex parte ad interim injunction order, passed by the Commercial Court, restraining the Appellants from manufacturing or selling products alleged…
-
Continue reading →: Reliance on Unsupported “Common General Knowledge” Cannot Sustain Patent Refusal
By Jigyasa Pareek The Bombay High Court, in Deepak Nitrite Limited vs Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs [COMM. MISC. PETITION NO. 107 OF 2025; decision dated July 6, 2026], underscored the duty of the Controller to issue a reasoned, speaking orders. The Court set aside an order by…
-
Continue reading →: Bombay High Court Remands Post-Grant Opposition After Controller Relies on Undisclosed YouTube Videos
By Jigyasa Pareek The Bombay High Court, in Ashit Padhya vs Assistent Controller of Patents and Designs, Mumbai [Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 145 of 2025; decision dated July 30, 2026], set aside an order passed by the Controller of Patents in a post-grant opposition proceedings and remanded the matter for…
