Open the app
IP Lex · Indian IP case law

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.

Clear filters

18 results

for “Remand”

Trade Marks

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2026 and I.A. 3697/2026

Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…

Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order
Patents

Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2023

A combination of distinct and independent active drugs, each with its own chemical identity and mechanism, does not fall under the Section 3(d) bar for derivatives of known substances. Using phrases such as 'for simultaneous, sepa…

Inventive StepMethod of TreatmentPharmaceutical CombinationPrior Art
Patents

Bigtec Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 2025:MHC:887

An objection that devising nucleotide probes or primers is routine experimentation lacking inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must engage with evidence of unexpected effects placed on record; and the Section 3(c) exclusion for …

BiotechnologyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior Art
Trade Marks

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 44/2025

Section 11(2) does not require a mark to have been formally declared well-known before its proprietor can invoke that status to oppose a similar or identical mark on dissimilar goods; it is enough that the mark is, in substance, e…

Bad Faith AdoptionCross-class ProtectionOppositionRemand
Patents

Deepak Nitrite Limited v. The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs

Bombay High Court · Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 107 of 2025

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 Profile
Patents

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13619

A patent claim for a chemical compound is not to be narrowed to a specific polymorphic or crystalline form merely because the specification discusses particular polymorphs, where the claim itself is drafted broadly to cover the co…

Claim ConstructionPatent InfringementPharmaceutical PatentPolymorph
Patents

Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11867

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 Patent
Trade Marks

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages (P) Ltd.

Supreme Court of India · (2004) 5 SCC 257

A trade mark that is otherwise descriptive or laudatory of the goods is not, for that reason alone, incapable of protection in a passing off action; if the mark has, through long and extensive use, acquired a secondary meaning ide…

Descriptive MarksDistinctivenessGeneric MarksPassing Off
Patents

ITC Limited v. Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks

Calcutta High Court · IPDPTA/13/2024

Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes an invention only where its primary or intended use or commercial exploitation is shown, on identifiable evidence, to be contrary to public order or morality or seriously prejudicial …

FER PrinciplesNatural JusticePatent ProsecutionPublic Order And Morality
Patents

Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court · 2023:DHC:3342

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
Page 1 of 2Next