Intellectual Property Rights Annual Digest 2025-Part 1

Patents Act, 1970 High Court Reports Revocation Petition Can Be Filed Or Sustained After Expiry Of Term Of Patent: Delhi High Court Case Title: Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. The Controller Of Patents & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 41 The Delhi High Court has ruled that a revocation petition can be filed or sustained after the expiry of the term of the patent. While dealing with a patent infringement suit, Justice Amit Bansal observed that just because the term of the patent has expired, it would not mean that the suit has become infructuous, as the cause of action still survives. S.10(4) Patents Act | Delhi HC Rejects Appeal For Salmonella Microorganism-Based Live Vaccine, Says Application Lacks 'Inventive Contribution' Case Title: The Regents of the University Of California vs. Controller Of Patents Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 222 The Delhi High Court has upheld the refusal to grant a patent to the Regents of the University Of California relating to a recombinant Salmonella microorganism-based live vaccine for preventing enteric bacterial infection. Madras High Court Upholds Rejection Of AI-Human Integration Patent Claim Case Title: Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59 The Madras High Court bench dismissed an appeal seeking a review of a patent claim for a product designed to integrate human and AI capabilities. The appeal was filed by Caleb Suresh Motupalli before the single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, challenging the order of the Controller of Patents. Upon review, the court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Controller's decision and accordingly rejected the appeal. Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Pay ₹20K As Costs To Army Central Welfare Fund For Seeking Adjournment In IPR Case Case Title: Neeraj Gupta v. The Controller Of Patents And Designs Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 534 Delhi High Court imposed Rs. 20,000 as costs after a Central Government standing counsel sought repeated adjournments in an IPR case. Justice Saurabh Banerjee renotified the matter and granted adjournment, subject to payment of costs to be paid to the Army Central Welfare Fund by the Central Government within four weeks. 'Complete Specification' Of Invention In Patent Is Sacrosanct To Determine Case Of Infringement: Delhi High Court Case title: Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 544 The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the 'Complete Specification' of an invention is sacrosanct for determining infringement of its patent. Controller Of Patents Must Specify Known Substance Against Which Claimed Invention Is Being Assessed In Hearing Notice: Delhi High Court Case title: Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v. The Controller Of Patents Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 558 The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Controller of Patents must clearly specify in the hearing notice the 'known substance' against which the claimed invention of an applicant is being assessed. Trademark Act, 1999 Supreme Court Reports 'Positive Example Of Out-of-Court Settlement': Supreme Court Lauds Parties After Trademark Dispute Was Amicably Settled Case Title: Murlidhar Gyanchandani and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another., Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5549 of 2024 In a trademark dispute that was resolved through out-of-court settlement, the Supreme Court expressed its hope for the constructive negotiation of such disputes without requiring several rounds of litigation. “We hope that this serves as a positive example of an out-of-court settlement, demonstrating how disputes can often be constructively negotiated without the need for sparring litigation before a court of law.,” the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said. 'Burger King' Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Gives Interim Relief To Pune Burger King, Stays HC's Restraint Order Case Title: Anahita Irani v. Burger King Case No.: SLP(C) 6282/2025 The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Bombay High Court which restrained Pune's iconic Burger King from using the trademark 'Burger King'. A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the proprietors of the Pune eatery against the High Court's order. The case relates to the trademark dispute between the United States food giant 'Burger King' and the Pune-based eatery. All Trademark Disputes Aren't Outside Arbitration; In Personam Issues Relating To License Agreement Arbitrable: Supreme Court Case Title: K. Mangayarkarasi & Anr. v. N.J. Sundaresan & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 597 The Supreme Court held that a mere allegation of fraud or misconduct does not divest an arbitral tribunal of its...

Intellectual Property Rights Annual Digest 2025-Part 1

Ayushi Shukla

Tags