The web site is designed for general information purposes only and should not be construed to be any formal legal advice. In case you require any advice, you may contact us before acting on any information herein. The firm takes no responsibility for any information that may be found not upto date/ incorrect/ insufficient. This website does not in any way establish or intend to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be used as such an invitation for attorney-client relationship. The viewer acknowledges that there has been no inducement, invitation or solicitation of any nature whatsoever to create an attorney-client relationship through this website.



Chandra Sekar Vs. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Chennai High Court in Writ Jurisdiction set aside order dismissing the patent applications on basis that the request for examination was filed beyond the prescribed period of 48 months. no delay or fault can be attributed to the petitioner. For negligence/ docketing error by agent, the valuable statutory rights of the petitioner cannot be completely deprived of. Read More

UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents And DESIGNS AND ANR.

Kolkata High Court held that novelty resides in 2D design too. GUI on the finished article is a mechanical and manual process under section 2(d). A software developer develops a source code which creates the GUI. This source code is then embedded in the micro-controllers and micro-processors and is displayed in screen by illuminating pixels by electronic means. Therefore, the design is applied to the article by industrial process and means. Read More


Delhi High Court clarifies Section 64 of the Patents Act, and observed that there is no limitation prescribed either in the Patents Act or under the Patents Rules, and held that a limitation period cannot be read it into the provision. Court held that filing of a revocation petition could be done at any point in time when such a person’s interest either arises or continues during the life/term of the Patent. Read More


Controller allowed amendment in claims and granted the Patent (as well as dismissed the Pre Grant Opposition) after completion of pleadings, hearing and submissions of post-hearing written submissions and without any notice to Opponent to respond to the proposed amendments, the Patent was granted. Delhi High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter Back for reconsideration of pre-grant opposition. Read More


Delhi High Court clarifies legal position as to maintainability of divisional application and held that a divisional application cannot be filed if there is no “plurality of inventions”. The Appeal was dismissed with cost. Read More


Delhi High Court interprets Section 59 and allows amendment in claims and narrowing down of scope of claims (from product to process) in view of disclosure of process in the description. Read More


Delhi High Court clarifies that when the subject matter of the patent application is showing technical advancement over the cited prior arts, and when the cited prior arts are considerably old, it is a clear indicator of non-obviousness. Read More

FERID ALLANI Vs Union of India

Delhi High Court Interprets Section 3 (k) of Patents Act and "Technical effect" and "Technical contribution" for computer programs. Read More

Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. Vs Joint Controller of Patents

Delhi High Court in re: Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. Vs Joint Controller of Patents, vide its judgment dated March 29, 2023 set aside the impugned order rejecting grant of Patent and directed the Patent to be granted. Read More

Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd vs Sanjay Dalia

Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place. Read More

Paragon Rubber Industries vs. M/s. Pragathi Rubber Mills & Ors

Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect of one cause of action and not the other. Read More

Dabur India Ltd. Vs. K. R. Industries

Supreme Court held that a composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise. Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code specifically states so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same should be ignored. Read More

Dhodha House vs S.K. Maingi

Supreme Court held that for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a court only because two causes of action joined in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same would not mean that thereby the jurisdiction can be conferred upon a court which had jurisdiction to try only the suit in respect of one cause of action and not the other. Recourse to the additional forum, however, in a given case, may be taken if both the causes of action arise within the jurisdiction of the Read More

Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP & Ors.

5 Bench of Supreme Court held that Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. Read More

Nokia Corporation Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, Chennai

The Chennai High Court held that the time prescribed under Rule 20 for filing national phase PCT Application in India is 31 months from priority date, and the period, which could be extended by taking into consideration of facts and circumstances, is one month under Rule 138. The application for extension is required to be made within the period prescribed. Therefore, proviso would come into operation for the purpose of calculating period of one month. On true interpretation of rule 138, it is h Read More

Natco Pharma Limited Vs. Bayer Corporation

The Controller of Patents Granted India’s first Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited in respect of Patent no. 215758 of Bayer Corporation. Read More

Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. Vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr.

Delhi High Court set Guidelines to determine jurisdiction in Internet related cases Read More


Agreeing with Single Judge's Consideration to adverse impact of grant of injunction on life saving drugs Delhi High Court imposed Cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Appellant Read More

J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents & Design & Ors.

Supreme Court of India, Appeal against Pre Grant opposition order to be heard by High Court though Patent Act amended and IPAB came into existence Read More

Cadila Healthcare vs. Dabur India/ Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan

Delhi High Court declines Cadila Healthcare's plea to restrain use of 'Sugar Free' Read More

Khoday India Limited Vs. The Scotch Whisky Association and others

Supreme Courts Bars Challenge To “Peter Scot” On Principles Of Acquiescence And/ Or Waiver Read More

Chemtura Corporation Vs. Union of India

Delhi High Court vacated interim injunction and directs defendants to maintain accounts of manufacture, sale and supply Read More

TVS Motor Company Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited

No balance of convenience or irreparable loss Chennai High Court set aside Injunction granted by Single Judge of High Court Read More

Glaxo Smith Kline PLC and Ors. Vs. Controller of Patents & Designs and Ors.

Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed, held that Challenge to a provision accrued before it is repealed is maintainable if the repealing act is silent Read More

The Institute of Cost Accountants of India Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Mumbai High Court (DB) held that mere posting of the letter on website does not constitute communication of objection as required by rule 38(4) under the Trademark Rules. Read More

Union of India Vs. Malhotra Book Depot

Delhi High Court in a Letter Patent Appeal upheld the single Judge Order that issuance of notice on Form O3 mandatory before removing the mark. Restoration period to be counted from date of removal from Register not from due date of renewal Read More

Novartis AG Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Natco Pharma Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; M/s. Cancer Patients Aid Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Supreme Court of India rejects Novartis Patent for Beta Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate being violative of Section 2(1) (j), (ja) as well as 3(d) of Indian Patent Act in view of the earlier Patent for Imatinib free salt Read More

Recent Activity

Date : November 09, 2019
Location: Taipei, Taiwan

APAA 70th Council Meeting

70th Council Meeting of Asian Patent Attorneys Association was held in Taipei, Taiwan from November 9 to November 12, 2020

View All

Our Services

Aswal Associates A full-service Intellectual Property firm; Patent and Trademark Attorney in India; Best Patents Law Firms in India; IP Law Firms in India, Patent and Trademark attorneys in India; Patent law firms in India; India - Best Law Firms for Patent Prosecution & Litigation; Top Patent Lawyers in India - 2023; Top Indian Law Firms With An IPR Practice;