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.
13 results
for “Section 15”
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents & Anr.
A divisional application under Section 16 is maintainable only where the claims of the parent application themselves disclose a plurality of distinct inventions; disclosure of additional inventions solely in the specification, wit…
Claim ConstructionDivisional ApplicationPatent ProsecutionPlurality Of InventionsCopyrightCryogas Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Inox India Limited & Ors.
Whether an artistic work is a design capable of registration under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, so as to lose copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 upon industrial reproduction beyond fifty …
Artistic WorkCopyright Design OverlapFunctionalityIndustrial ReproductionPatentsDeepak Nitrite Limited v. The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs
It is wholly impermissible for the Controller, while exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 15, to rely upon 'common general knowledge' as a self-sufficient ground for refusing a patent application without setting out and …
Common General KnowledgeFood Grade Sodium NitriteFree-FlowingImpurity ProfileCopyrightDr. Ashok M. Bhat v. Harichand Nagpal & Ors.
An injunction against use of a registered artistic work follows the artistic work onto any label, not merely the one impugned in the plaint. In Order XXXIX Rule 2A proceedings justification is no defence: so long as an order stand…
Contempt of InjunctionCounterfeitingExemplary CostsOrder XXXIX Rule 2AOtherICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises & Anr.
The right of publicity is derived from the right of privacy and vests exclusively in a living individual and the indicia of that individual's personality, such as name, likeness, voice and signature. Publicity or personality right…
Ambush MarketingFalse EndorsementPassing OffPersonality RightsPatentsInterDigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
An Indian court may grant an anti-enforcement or anti-anti-suit injunction restraining a party from giving effect to a foreign anti-suit order that seeks to prevent litigation of patent infringement claims properly within the Indi…
Anti-Anti-Suit InjunctionComity Of CourtsCross-Border LitigationFRANDPatentsMicrosoft 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 PatentDesignsNEC Corporation & Ors. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
A graphical user interface is not per se excluded from registration as a design under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000; the requirement that a design be applied to an article by an industrial process must be constru…
Copyright Design OverlapDesign RegistrationDigital PlatformsNoveltyPatentsNippon A&L Inc. v. The Controller of Patents
An amendment restricting product-by-process claims to process-only claims is permissible under Section 59 where it narrows rather than broadens the scope of the claims as originally filed and remains within matter already disclose…
Claim AmendmentPatent ProsecutionProduct By Process ClaimsSection 59PatentsOpenTV Inc. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The exclusion of business methods under Section 3(k) is absolute and unqualified, unlike the per se qualification applicable to computer programmes; the true nature of a claim is determined by its substance rather than its form or…
Business MethodClaim AmendmentComputer Related InventionsSection 3(k)