Patents Act, 1970

The Supreme Court, hearing a suo motu writ petition concerning the management of the COVID‑19 pandemic, examined the Central Government's Liberalised Vaccination Policy, which shifted free vaccination for the 18‑44 age group to State/UT governments and private hospitals and introduced differential pricing. The petition…

The Supreme Court, exercising suo motu jurisdiction under Article 32, examined the humanitarian crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and issued directions to the Union and State governments on the supply of oxygen, essential drugs, and vaccines, as well as on hospital admission policies and protection of individuals …

Sugen Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn were granted Indian Patent No. 209251 for a pharmaceutical invention. Cipla Ltd. filed an opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, and the Controller revoked the patent on 24 September 2012 relying on the Opposition Board’s recommendation, but without furnishing the Boa…

J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. applied for a patent which was opposed by Span Diagnostics Ltd. (respondent No.3). The opposition was initially a pre‑grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller rejected the pre‑grant opposition on 23‑Aug‑2006 and the respondent filed appeals (FAO Nos. 292/06 …

The appellant, Sharad Babu Digumarti, was charged under IPC Sections 292 and 294 and IT Act Section 67 for alleged possession of obscene material in electronic form. He was discharged of the IT Act charge but the trial court framed a charge under IPC Section 292, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court examined …

Monsanto Co. and its Indian subsidiary sued Coramandal Indag Products for alleged infringement of their patents covering herbicide formulations containing the active ingredient butachlor. The defendant argued that the patents should be revoked under Sections 64(e) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970, claiming the inventio…

Glaxo Smith Kline PLC and others applied for a patent and an Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) in 1998‑2000. The Controller of Patents rejected the EMR in 2002; the applicants filed writ petitions and a Calcutta High Court Single Judge set aside the rejection and remanded the matter. The Controller again rejected the EMR…

S.M. Dyachem Ltd. (plaintiff) claimed that its registered trademark “PIKNIK” for food products was infringed by Cadbury (India) Ltd.’s use of “PICNIC” on chocolates and sought a temporary injunction. The High Court set aside the trial court’s injunction, holding that the marks differed in essential features and there w…

Monsanto Technology LLC sued Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. for permanent and temporary injunctions alleging infringement of its patented cotton biotechnology (patent No. 214436) and misuse of its trademarks. The defendants filed a counter‑claim under Section 64 of the Patents Act seeking revocation of the patent on the ground t…

Dr. Aloys Wobben, holder of several wind‑turbine patents, sued Yogesh Mehra and others for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court. The respondents filed revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board under s.64(1) of the Patents Act and also raised counter‑claims in the infringement suits se…

Novartis AG sought a product patent in India for the beta‑crystalline form of imatinib mesylate (Gleevec). The patent office rejected the application on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and failure to satisfy the enhanced‑efficacy requirement of section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. Novartis appealed directly t…