Wheatley v Drillsafe Ltd.[1] Facts: Wheatley (W), the proprietor and licensee of a European patent relating to a threaded hole cutting device, appealed against a decision[2] holding that the patent was invalid on the ground of common general knowledge and accordingly should be revoked, and also that, in any event, there had been no infringement…
Verathon Medical (Canada) Ltd v Aircraft Medical Ltd.[1] Facts: A developer and manufacturer of medical devices (V), incorporated in Canada, alleged that a manufacturer of medical equipment (M) from UK infringed V’s patent in respect of an intubation instrument. V also sought for amendment of the patent.[2] M counterclaimed for revocation of the patent on…
Lubrizol Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (No.5)[1] Facts: Lubrizol (L) sued Esso Petroleum (E) for infringement of its patent relating to lubricating oil. E denied infringement, alleging that the patent was invalid, and counterclaimed for its revocation. The grounds for invalidity were that the claim was ambiguous and was not fairly based, that the…
Kirin-Amgen Inc v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc (No.2)[1] Facts: Kirin-Amgen Inc. (K) was the proprietor of a European patent relating to the production of erythropoietin (EPO) by recombinant DNA technology. EPO was a hormone made in the kidney which stimulated the production of red blood cells. Transkaryotic Therapies Inc (T), a US corporation, had also developed…
Improver Corp v Remington Consumer Products Ltd.[1] Facts: Plaintiff in this case were European patentees and inventor of a depilatory machine called “Epilady” which had a spring and, when rotated, plucked hairs from skin. Defendant produced a device called “Smooth and Silky” which plucked hairs using a rubber band. P alleged infringement. D denied infringement…
Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd (No.1)[1] Facts In this case, the plaintiffs were proprietors of a patent for steel lintels[2]. The defendants copied and manufactured it. The defendants then produced a second form of lintel which differed slightly. The plaintiffs brought a second action in respect of this lintel, and further included…
Amersham Pharmacia Biotech AB v. Amicon Ltd.[1] Facts: Amersham Pharmacia (AP) appealed against a decision[2] holding that its patent for a particular apparatus and method of chromatography had not been infringed by Amicon (A). The object of the invention was to speed up the time taken to remove debris from the inside of chromatography equipment,…
Facts: Two plaintiffs, namely, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc., filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent by the defendants. The plaintiff No.1 Company claiming to be the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics stated that it engages into collaborative agreements and alliances with numerous partners and…
Facts: The defendant No.1 claimed to have obtained a patent for process titled as “A Process of manufacturing engraved design articles on metals or non-metals”. The defendants No.2 and 3 are Commissioners of Customs (Import), Officers of Customs. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration and consequential reliefs of injunction on the premise that the…
Facts: There were two suits in this case. One by the plaintiff Bajaj Auto Limited which filed a suit under Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaintiff’s patent and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said patent and/or manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for…
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Mercury Electronics (Ericsson v. Micromax) STATUS: Pending before the Delhi High Court FACTS: Plaintiff is the registered owner in Indian of eight patents referred to as AMR Patents, 3G Patents and EDGE Patent. He states that all the aforesaid Patents are registered and currently valid. It was alleged by the plaintiff…