Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: November 24–30, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., C.M.A. (PT) No. 43 of 2023 Living Media India Limited and Anr v. Amar Ujala Limited and Ors, CS (COMM) 1238/2025 Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 633/2022 ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors., CS(COMM) 221/2024 Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr, C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 57/2024 Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 716/2021 Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani & Anr., C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 16/2024 Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 442 Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2025 Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2024 Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur, CS(COMM) 669/2025 Aristo Pharmaceutical Private Limited v. Healing Pharma India Private Limited & Ors., IA (L) NO. 26226 OF 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (L) NO. 25932 OF 2025 Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd, FAO (COMM) 175/2025 Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 353/2024 Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 445 Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors., CS(COMM) 914/2023 Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents, C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., CS(COMM) 1038/2024 Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr., C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 77/2025 Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Roopa Industries, A. No.1861 of 2025 Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS(COMM) 1251/2025 EscapeX IP LLC V. Google LLC Reliance Industries Limited v. Abhay Kumar and Another, IA (L) NO. 35071/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 662/2025 Boman R. Irani v. The Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa, OSA No. 2/2023 AJAY alias VISHAL VEERU DEVGAN v. THE ARTISTS PLANET & ORS Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 449 Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v. Joy Crizildaa, OA 904 of 2025 INTERNATIONAL REPORTS US Court Orders EscapeX, Lawyers To Pay Google USD 2.5 Lakh As Cost For Frivolous Patent Suit Case Title: EscapeX IP LLC v. Google LLC The U.S. Federal Circuit upheld orders directing EscapeX to pay Google over USD 2.5 lakh in attorney fees, finding that EscapeX filed a frivolous patent suit and then prolonged the case with an equally baseless post-judgment motion. The Court also affirmed additional sanctions against EscapeX and its lawyers for multiplicity of proceedings. HIGH COURT REPORTS PATENTS ACT, 1970 Madras High Court Asks Patent Office To Re-Evaluate Objections Against Allied Metallurgical's Anti-Stick Coating Patent Case Title: Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. Case No.: C.M.A. (PT) No. 43 of 2023 The Madras High Court set aside the Patent Office's order refusing Hi Tech Chemicals' challenge to an anti-stick coating patent owned by Allied Metallurgical Products. The Court held that the reasoning on obviousness was inadequate, noting that the Patent Office failed to explain why key objections on novelty, inventive step and technical advantage were rejected. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Medilabo's Patent For Neurodegenerative-Disease Drug Case Title: Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2024 The Delhi High Court quashed the refusal of Medilabo's patent application relating to a pharmaceutical composition, holding that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims and wrongly applied the bar on “methods of treatment” under Section 3(i). The Court held that patentability must be assessed based solely on the amended claims, and mere references to the word “treatment” in the specification cannot attract Section 3(i). Delhi High Court Quashes Patent Office Order, Sends Trident's 'Air Rich Yarn' Patent Plea Back For Review Case Title: Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022 The Delhi High Court overturned the refusal of Trident's patent application for “air rich” yarn technology, finding that the Patent Office failed to assess the core inventive feature i.e., homogeneous pore distribution across the yarn's radial cross-section. The Court held that the refusal lacked a proper obviousness analysis, overlooked detailed examples in the specification, and failed to show how prior art taught the invention. Madras High Court Quashes Order Allowing Pfizer To Seek Documents From Indian Drug Manufacturer For US Suit Case Title: Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc. ...

Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: November 24–30, 2025

Ayushi Shukla

Tags