Search Indian IP Case Law
Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographical indications — organised by Act and section, each with a link to the judgment on the court’s website.
16 results
for “Novelty”
Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited
A design's novelty and originality under the Designs Act must be assessed by comparing it, as applied to the specific article for which registration is sought, against prior art shown to have been applied to the same or a similar …
CancellationDesign RegistrationNoveltyOriginalityPatentsBishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries
An improvement on a device or process already known must involve more than a routine workshop improvement; it must independently satisfy the tests of novelty and inventive step by producing a new result, a new article, or a better…
Inventive StepNoveltyObviousnessPatent RevocationDesignsCrocs Inc USA v. M/s Bata India Ltd and Ors.
In commercial litigation, costs ordinarily follow the outcome of the case, and the successful party is awarded actual and reasonable litigation expenses. Parties pursuing commercial disputes must bear the financial consequences of…
Actual CostsCancellation of DesignDesign InfringementIndustrial DesignDesignsDiageo Brands B.V. & Anr. v. Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt. Ltd.
The test for infringement of a registered design under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 is whether the design, viewed by an instructed or knowledgeable observer aware of the prior art, is identical or an obvious or fraudulent i…
Design InfringementFunctionalityNoveltyScope Of Design ProtectionCopyrightEastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr.
Copyright in a derivative or compiled work requires the exercise of some minimum degree of creativity through the application of skill and judgment, and not merely labour and capital expended in copying. Inputs that involve only m…
Copyright InfringementLiterary WorkOriginalityPublic DomainPatentsF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited
A credible challenge to patent validity under Section 64(1)(f), showing that the claimed compound is an obvious and predictable structural modification of a compound already disclosed in the patentee's own earlier prior art, can d…
EvergreeningGenus-Species PatentInterim InjunctionInventive StepPatentsFerid Allani v. Union of India & Ors.
Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes only computer programmes per se from patentability, and not inventions implemented through a computer programme which demonstrate a technical effect or technical contribution to the s…
Computer Related InventionsPatentable Subject MatterSection 3(k)Software PatentPatentsFMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited
In a quia timet action under Sections 48 and 108 concerning a soon-to-expire patent, where the defendant has raised a substantial, non-frivolous challenge to validity through a pending revocation petition and has already commenced…
Interim InjunctionNoveltyPatent InfringementPrior ArtPatentsIntra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. The Controller of Patents
Although the deuterated compound demonstrated approximately 72% higher parent-drug exposure in the blood, the comparative studies showed substantially similar pharmacological activity between the deuterated and non-deuterated comp…
Deuterated CompoundsHeterocycle-fused Gamma-carbolinesParent Drug ExposurePharmacological ActivityPatentsMicrosoft Technology Licensing, LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
An invention is not excluded under Section 3(k) merely because it is implemented as an algorithm on a computer; the determinative question is whether the claimed subject matter demonstrates a technical effect or technical contribu…
Computer Related InventionsPatent ProsecutionSection 3(k)Software Patent