Intellectual Property Rights Annual Digest 2025 - Part 2

Patents Act, 1970 Supreme Court Reports Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes' Patent Infringement Suit Against Atomberg's “Intellon” Water Purifier To Bombay High Court Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd Case No.: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1030 Supreme Court decided whether the Suit for Infringement (Delhi Suit) should be transferred to the Bombay High Court, or the Suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement (Bombay Suit) should be transferred to the Delhi High Court - allowed the transfer petition - The Delhi Suit is transferred to the Bombay High Court to be tried along with the Bombay Suit - Noted that the omission of the proviso from Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 (which existed in the pari materia provision in the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911) signifies that a suit for groundless threat of Infringement has an independent cause of action from a suit for infringement - Held that Despite the independent cause of action, the questions of fact, law, and issues to be determined in both suits are substantially overlapping High Court Reports Delhi High Court Refuses To Injunct Xiaomi From Using 'Find Device' Technology Over Alleged Patent Infringement Title: Conqueror Innovations Private Limited V. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 752 The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited in a patent infringement suit filed against its “find device” technology, which helps users to locate, lock or erase data from their lost or stolen devices. S.3(k) Patents Act | Delhi High Court Declines Patent To US-Entity For System To Locate Users Sharing 'Sensitive Content' On P2P Networks Case title: Kroll Information Assurance LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 787 The Delhi High Court has declined a plea moved by US-based Kroll Information Assurance, seeking to patent 'System to locate users via a Peer-to-Peer Network'. Justice Amit Bansal cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970 which declares inventions related to 'algorithm' and 'computer program per se' as non-patentable. Delhi High Court Explains Scope Of 'Pro Tem' Orders In Patent Infringement Suit Against Mobile Company 'Lava' Case title: Dolby International AB & Anr. v. Lava International Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 812 The Delhi High Court had the occasion to discuss in detail the scope of a pro tem order, while dealing with Europe based audio/video processor Dolby International's suit against alleged patent infringement by Indian mobile phone company Lava. Patent Infringement: Delhi High Court Restrains Zydus From Manufacturing Biologic Similar To 'Nivolumab' Cancer Drug Title: E. R. Squibb And Sons, LLC & Ors v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 825 The Delhi High Court has restrained Zydus Lifesciences Limited from manufacturing, selling importing, exporting or dealing in any biologic which is similar to Nivolumab, a drug used to treat cancer, sold under the brand name “Opdivo.” Advisable For Legislature To Correct Lacuna On What Constitutes 'Infringement' Under Patents Act: Delhi High Court Case title: Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 832 The Delhi High Court has suggested to the legislature to define what constitutes 'infringement' under the Patents Act 1970. A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul noted that while other intellectual property statutes define what constitutes infringement therein, the Patent Act is 'peculiarly' silent on this aspect. Simplicity No Bar To Patentability, Even Simple Changes Can Lead To New Inventions: Delhi High Court Case title: Dong Yang PC, Inc v. Controller Of Patents And Designs Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 896 The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a simple invention, if novel and non-obvious, warrants patent protection when it addresses a technical problem with ingenuity. [Patent Act] Applicant's Failure To Disclose Prior Art Doesn't Bar Amendment In Specifications Of Application: Delhi High Court Case title: Dong Yang PC, Inc v. Controller Of Patents And Designs Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 900 The Delhi High Court has held that if by suppressing any prior art, an applicant is able to obtain patent undeservingly, then such prior art can certainly be relied even at a later stage to challenge the grant of patent to such an applicant or to revoke such patent, under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. Process Patent | S.104A Of Patents Act Can Be Invoked At Interim Stage To Seek Disclosure Of Defendant's Process: Delhi High Court Case title: F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 926 The Delhi...

Intellectual Property Rights Annual Digest 2025 - Part 2

Ayushi Shukla

Tags