Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: November 17–23, 2025

Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 Shroff Geeta v. Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design, IPDPTA/88/2023 FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518 Hemant Karamchand Rohera v. Controller General of Patents and Designs & Anr., Commercial Misc. Petition No. 11/2022 Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1525 Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Adwin Pharma & Anr., IA (L)-27480-2024 Kamat Hotels India Ltd. v. Orchid Hotel and Hostel, IA (L) No. 33327/2025 SanDisk LLC v. Welborn Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1546 Nutrivative Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1557 Dr. Ashok M Bhat v. R.V. Pharmaceuticals & Anr., IA No. 3522/2025 Asian Paints Ltd. v. Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal, IA No. 4134/2025 MHG IP Holding Singapore v. Club Anantara Suites and Retreat, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1568 SignatureGlobal (India) Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1540 Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Hari Shankar Bilwal, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1534 Ferrero Spa & Ors. v. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1572 Saregama India Ltd. v. En.ssyou.tube & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1519 Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 434 RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 429 Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Relaxo Footwears Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1529 Dr Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe Ashok Kumar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 432 Raj Shamani & Anr. v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1551 TV Today Network Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1531 HIGH COURT REPORTS PATENTS ACT, 1970 Computer-Related Invention Not Barred U/S 3(k) Patents Act If It Demonstrates Technical Contribution: Madras High Court Case Title: Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 The Madras High Court set aside the Patent Office's refusal of patent application for “Graphic Representations of Data Relationship,” holding that the invention involved an inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) and was not excluded as a “computer programme per se” under Section 3(k). Invention Requiring Destruction Of Human Embryos Not Patentable: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Shroff Geeta v. Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design Case No.: IPDPTA/88/2023 The Calcutta High Court affirmed the Patent Office's refusal of a patent relating to human embryonic stem cells under Section 3(b), holding that the invention required destruction of human embryos and was therefore unethical and contrary to public order. Delhi High Court Rejects FMC's Plea to Block Natco Insecticide Over Patent Dispute Case Title: FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518 Dismissing FMC's request for interim relief, the Delhi High Court held that Natco had raised a credible validity challenge to Claim 12 of FMC's IN'645 patent. The Court found that FMC's earlier patent IN'104 disclosed the same intermediate compound, supporting Natco's Gillette defence. Bombay High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Rejection, Orders Fresh Consideration of Medical Therapeutic Device Patent Case Title: Hemant Karamchand Rohera v. Controller General of Patents and Designs & Anr. Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 11 of 2022 The Bombay High Court remanded a rejected patent application for fresh consideration, holding that the Patent Office failed to follow mandatory procedures under Sections 14 and 15, had not issued specific objections and passed a non-speaking order. The Court also held that non-disclosure of a prior review petition did not amount to suppression warranting dismissal. TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Delhi High Court Bars Former Distributor from Selling CREED Perfume, Awards Rs 37.42 Lakh in Damages Case Title: Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Private Limited & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1525 The Court granted a permanent injunction and Rs 37.42 lakh in damages after finding that the former distributor continued selling CREED products and used the CREED mark despite expiry of the distribution agreement. Based on admissions and undisputed material, the Court granted summary judgment. Bombay High Court Blocks Sale Of Diabetes Drug ELGIMET For Similarity To GLIMET's Mark Case Title: Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Adwin Pharma & Anr. Case No.: IA (L)-27480-2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 225 of 2024 Holding the marks phonetically and structurally similar, the Court confirmed an interim injunction restraining use of ELGIMET. It found likelihood of confusion in medicinal products and held that Griffon's coined mark GLIMET was distinctive. Bombay High...

Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: November 17–23, 2025

Ayushi Shukla

Tags