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.
18 results
for “Remand”
Monsanto Technology LLC & Ors. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Ors.
Revocation of a patent on a counter-claim under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 cannot be decided summarily; it presupposes a full trial in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly where patent exclusion under…
Biotechnology PatentCounter-claimInterim InjunctionPatent EligibilityCopyrightMy Space Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.
An internet intermediary hosting user-generated content is not liable for copyright infringement merely because its business model derives revenue from such content or because it performs format-shifting or indexing; it forfeits t…
Copyright InfringementDigital PlatformsIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementDesignsNEC 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 PlatformsNoveltyPatentsRaytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs
Novel hardware is not a prerequisite for the patentability of a computer-related invention under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act; the applicable test is whether the claimed invention involves a technical advancement and provides a…
Computer Related InventionsPatent ProsecutionSection 3(k)Software PatentPatentsSyngenta Participations AG v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, efficacy is not a fixed, uniform standard confined to therapeutic effect; its content depends on the field of the invention. For an agrochemical compound, a new polymorphic form demonst…
EfficacyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior ArtPatentsT-Mobile International AG and Co. KG. v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
Section 3(m) contains four disjunctive exceptions: a mere scheme, rule, or method of performing a mental act, and a method of playing a game. The word 'mere' qualifies the first three limbs, confining the exclusion to claims that …
Computer Implemented InventionGuidelinesMental ActMethod of Playing GamePatentsTapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
A rejection for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must be supported by a structured, reasoned analysis identifying the skilled person, the inventive concept, and the specific differences from the cited prior art and wh…
Inventive StepKnown ProcessObviousnessPatent ProsecutionPatentsVifor (International) Ltd. & Anr. v. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
A product-by-process claim protects the novel product itself where the product cannot otherwise be defined by its structural features, and obtainable by language in such a claim is descriptive rather than limiting; infringement is…
Claim ConstructionInterim InjunctionNoveltyPharmaceutical Patent