Delhi High Court Archives | Page 11 of 17

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

In a recent case involving Gogoro Inc, the Delhi High Court remanded a patent decision back to the patent office on the ground that the order was unreasoned. The Controller of Patents in the case rejected the patent application filed by Gogoro Inc relating to a power charging system on the ground that it lacked inventive step. The Controller cited three prior art references but failed to explain how a person skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed…

August 29, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1314Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

CASE BRIEF : Osram GmbH & Anr. Vs. Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.

Facts Plaintiffs, M/s Osram GmbH and Osram Lighting Private Limited [“OLPL”] filed a suit against Mr. Tejmeet Singh Sethi and Mr. Hartej Singh Sethi (Defendants) claiming their rights in the registered Trademark “OSRAM”. This mark was adopted by OLPL internationally in 1906 and later registered in India in 1945 by General Electric Company Limited. Plaintiffs were engaged in manufacturing a range of products comprising Lumilux Plus Fluorescent Lamps, CFL lamps and other related products. Plaintiffs found that Defendants, who were…

August 25, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 1237Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

CASE BRIEF : Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Facts: The Petitioner, Phonographic Performance Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, was a registered copyright society. It had assigned the copyright in various sound recordings for communication to the public in the area of public performance and broadcast, through which it owned/controlled the public performance rights of more than 350 music companies with 3 million international and domestic sound recordings. It provided a single window for various parties seeking a license for authorised use of sound recordings.…

August 23, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0Comment 2076Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Divisional Applications cannot exceed scope of Parent Application: Delhi High Court

Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH vs The Controller Of Patents & Anr. on 12 July, 2022 Delhi High Court Facts / Background The Applicant, Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, had filed a National Phase PCT Application on 14th November, 2008, for 'Use of IV Inhibitors'. The patent specification had Claims numbered 1 - 18, with two claims numbered as 15, which were referred to as 15 and 15A. The First Examination Report ("FER") was issued on 24th March, 2014, in response to…

August 23, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1390Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: Hailey Bieber strikes a win! Entrepreneur Hailey Bieber was sued for trademark infringement by Purna Khatau and Phoebe Vickers, founders of RHODE, a clothing line. The founders sought for a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Bieber submitted a 17-minute YouTube video documenting the inspiration behind the word 'RHODE'. Bieber stated in the video that 'RHODE' is her and her mother's middle name and hence, the…

July 28, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Geographical Indications (GI), Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 1221Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Weekly Anti-Trust and Privacy Updates

This week’s anti-trust and privacy updates are as follows: NCLAT suspends Amazon’s investment in Future-coupons, upholding CCI’s decision. The NCLAT has ordered Amazon to pay 200CR INR in penalty for making false statements and material omissions in its disclosures regarding the acquisition of Future Coupons Group. The Appellate Tribunal has upheld that Amazon deliberately mislead the CCI by misrepresenting its acquisition as an expansion of the portfolio and consequently, suppressing its strategic interest in the Subsidiary Future Retail Ltd. CCI, in…

July 26, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, IP and Antitrust/Competition, Privacy / Data Protection 0Comment 951Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

CASE BRIEF: Novo Nordisk AS vs. Union of India & Ors.

Facts (with Timeline): On 4th October, 2013, Novo Nordisk (hereinafter referred to as “Patentee”) was issued patent IN 257402. On 29th September, 2014, which is five days prior to the expiry of one year from the date of grant, Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries (hereinafter referred to as “Opponent) filed a post-grant opposition to the issued patent IN 257402. On 21st August, 2019, the Opposition Board provided its recommendation to the learned Controller. On 25th September, 2019 and 26th September, 2019, the hearing…

July 23, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1582Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings"

Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court gave clarity about how amended claims during opposition proceedings have to be dealt with by the Controller of Patents. In the case, four claim sets were filed by Novartis, the Patent Applicant, from the PCT filing stage, and the opponent in the case, NATCO, filed a pre-grant representation based on a pre-final claim set. Later, the claims were amended by the Patent Applicant, and a final set was submitted along with expert…

July 22, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1632Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on Patent Post grant opposition hearings

Post-Grant Patent Opposition, Evidence and Hearings: Role of Patent Office, Opposition Board, and Parties

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has reiterated the principles to be followed with respect to patent oppositions, and has once again explained the context, approach, and pace of such proceedings. The Court has reiterated the principles that have to be followed by the Opposition Board, Patent Office, and parties in opposition proceedings based on principles laid down in the Pharmacyclics case. While doing so, the Court emphasized the need to expedite post-grant opposition proceedings, and the need…

July 20, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 3110Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: Hero MotoCorp gets permission to use Hero as the trademark for EV business Hero MotoCorp led by Pawan Munjal gets permission for electric vehicles under the trademark Hero by the arbitration tribunal appointed by the Delhi High Court. The dispute was between two factions of the Munjal family group. Hero electric filed an application for an interim injunction against Hero MotoCorp for using HERO for the electric vehicles. The tribunal refused to grant an…

July 20, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Geographical Indications (GI), Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law, Social Media Law, Trademarks 0Comment 1330Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

CASE BRIEF : Osram GmbH & Anr. Vs. Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.

CASE BRIEF : Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Divisional Applications cannot exceed scope of Parent Application: Delhi High Court

Weekly Trademark Updates

Weekly Anti-Trust and Privacy Updates

CASE BRIEF: Novo Nordisk AS vs. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings

Post-Grant Patent Opposition, Evidence and Hearings: Role of Patent Office, Opposition Board, and Parties

Connect with Us

BananaIP has been acknowledged as a women-owned enterprise, certified by WEConnect International.

Connect with us