-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction in SNPC Patent Dispute Leaving the Pith and Marrow-All Elements Debate Open
By Jigyasa Pareek In Vishal Choudhary vs SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. [FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2024], the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging the grant of interim injunction in the infringement suit [CS(COMM) 431/2023] concerning four patents held by SNPC, bearing numbers 353483, 359114,…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Awards Compensatory and Exemplary Damages in Sitagliptin Patent Infringement Suit
By Jigyasa Pareek In Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. & Anr. vs Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh & Ors. [CS(COMM) 1075/2018], the Delhi High Court awarded compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and legal costs to the patentees of the anti-diabetic molecule Sitagliptin and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, notwithstanding the fact that the…
-
Continue reading →: Can a Hearing Notice Go Beyond Conveying the Date of Hearing?
By Jigyasa Pareek The answer is not entirely straightforward. The examination framework under the Patents Act contemplates that the Examiner conducts examination under Sections 12 and 13, following which the Controller communicates the objections to the applicant through the First Examination Report (FER). Hearing notices are primarily issued under Section…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Reiterates Maintainability of Divisional Applications Filed Pursuant to Lack of Unity Objections
In AbbVie Ireland Unlimited Company vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 65/2024, decided on 29 April 2026], the Delhi High Court set aside the Controller’s refusal of divisional patent application number 201918048639 relating to the process for preparing an intermediate compound of formula (C) used in preparation of…
-
Continue reading →: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Refusal of Design Cancellation Petition for Failure to Properly Examine Prior Publication and Novelty
In ARS Steels and Alloy International Private Limited vs The Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. [IPDAID/43/2024], the Calcutta High Court set aside the Controller’s order rejecting the cancellation petition against the registered design bearing number 257980, comprising of a double “XX-Rib” shape on the surface of construction rods,and…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Affirms that Functional Results Alone Do Not Constitute Sufficient Disclosure
In Arti Srivastava vs The Assistant Controller of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 252/2022], the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the refusal of patent application number 1774/DEL/2006, entitled “Method and System for Detecting Counterfeit Products”. The Controller had refused the application on the grounds of lack of inventive step and insufficiency…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Reiterates that Mosaicing of Prior Art is Impermissible in Design Invalidity Challenges
By Jigyasa Pareek In M/s. Orient Electric Limited vs Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited [CS(COMM) 331/2026], the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Crompton from manufacturing and selling its “GRACE” series ceiling fans on the ground that they prima facie infringed Orient Electric’s registered design for its “AEON”…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Faults Patent Office for Hindsight-Driven Analysis
In University of North Texas & Anr. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 32/2025], the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of patent application number 202117006438, entitled “Technologies for Rapid Detection and Quantitation of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Using Breath Samples” and remanded the matter for fresh…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Cautions Patent Office Against Serial Remands Caused by Incomplete Adjudication
In JFE Steel Corporation vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 483/2022], the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of patent application number 610/DELNP/2015 and remanded the matter to the Patent Office on the ground that the Controller had failed to adjudicate all objections raised in the hearing…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Holds Statutory Timelines for PCT National Phase Applications are Mandatory and Non-Extendable
In Neurocentria Inc. vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 5/2025, decision dated 18 May 2026], the Delhi High Court refused to permit the Appellant to retrospectively disclaim the earliest priority date in their Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) national phase application in order to overcome the statutory timeline governing…
Greetings
Welcome to Patents Rewind, Anand and Anand’s Patents and Designs blog that offers you an Indian perspective on issues surrounding patent and design eligibility and enforcement through latest case law and developments in the Indian patents and designs landscape.
Let’s connect
Join us!
Stay updated with our posts.
