What is patent quality and why does it matter? – A two-part post defining patent quality, an interim injunction granted under PPVFRA with some glaring errors in the order, and the Calcutta HC’s refusal to hold the 20-Year Patent Term as Unconstitutional! The SpicyIP Summer School Application deadline is also now over. Here’s a roundup of our blog posts, case summaries, and top IP developments in the country and the world this week. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Patent Quality and Performance Metrics: More is not better! (Part I)
What is Patent Quality and Why Does it Matter? In part I of the two-part post dealing with these questions, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan explores how patent quality is defined—legally and economically—and why it’s crucial for innovation, access, and credibility of the Indian Patent Office. He examines examiner incentives, performance metrics, and the risks of granting “bad patents.” See below for the link to the post.
Patent Quality and Performance Metrics: More is not better! (Part II)
Continuing the discussion on patent quality, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan breaks down IPO’s performance metrics to estimate how much time Examiners and Controllers have per application. Even with generous assumptions, the numbers are alarming. Quotas push volume over quality, and systemic incentives may be skewing outcomes. What does this mean for innovation and the future of Indian IP? Check out the link to the post below to know more.
An Update about the Results of 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on IP Law
After an internal review, it was determined that the submission, which had previously secured second place in the 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on IP Law, is to be disqualified. Consequently, the third prize winner has been moved up to the second prize, and there will be no third prize for the 2024 edition of the essay competition.
Other Posts
Interim Injunction Granted under PPVFRA!
A Hyderabad Court granted an interim injunction application under the PPVFRA, but not without some glaring errors. Yogesh Byadwal highlights that the Court omitted to appoint a scientific expert u/s. 66 of the Act while deciding crucial scientific questions. He further explains how the Court failed to delineate the parameters for deciding an interim injunction application under the PPVFFR.
Calcutta High Court Refuses to Hold 20-Year Patent Term from Date of Application as Unconstitutional
In Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v. UOI, the Cal HC recently examined and answered a constitutional challenge to the 20 year patent period stipulated under the Patent Act that begins when the application is filed but isn’t enforceable until the patent is granted. Hruthika Addlagatta analyses the judgment and the crucial but missing discussion on Section 45(3).
Case Summaries
Rieter Ag And Anr vs Kavassery Narayanaswamy on 13 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC seeking return of the plaint on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The plaint mentions that the plaintiffs, subsidiaries of Reiter Holding AG, filed the suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from the infringement of design, trademark and patent along with ancillary reliefs. It was held that the Court had the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit under Section 20(c) of CPC since a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. The application was thus dismissed due to lack of merit.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors vs Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 13 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs, companies incorporated under the Laws of Sweden, filed the present suit seeking relief of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing and passing off their well known trademark “VOLVO” along with other ancillary reliefs. The Court held that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that they are the registered proprietors of “VOLVO” and that the use of “VOLVO” by the defendant, who are engaged in identical services,is clearly aimed at confusing the consumers and inducing false impression of association or commercial connection between the plaintiff and defendant. The unauthorised use of the mark “VOLVO” by the defendant is said to be deliberate, unjustified, intended to solely capitalise the plaintiffs’ goodwill, diluting the distinctiveness of the mark. Hence, a clear case of passing off and infringement was made out with a decree in favour of the plaintiffs being passed.
Puma Se vs Sai Universal Shopping Ecom Pvt Ltd on 16 May, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The present application is under Order XIII A and VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the plaintiff seeking summary judgment in their favour in a trademark infringement and passing off case. The Court held that, from the pleadings, there is irrefutable evidence to show that the defendant is dealing with counterfeit goods bearing the trademark and logo of the plaintiff. Thus, examination of unrebutted material leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, and in that view, the application under Order XIII A CPC was allowed with the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd vs Mala Ram on 22 May, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiffs are groups of companies incorporated under the well-known mark “HERO” engaged in the manufacturing and sale of motorcycles, scooters and their parts and accessories. It was contended that the defendant is openly engaged in stocking/selling various infringing products. The Court held that no evidence had been led by the plaintiffs in support of their claim of damages. However, the defendants were found in possession, stocking, and selling infringed goods and thereby causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff. The Court thus deemed it appropriate to award compensation to the plaintiff and decreed the suit in their favour.
The present appeal has been filed by the defendant against an order dated 05.04.2025 passed by Commercial Court, Varanasi. The aforesaid suit was instituted praying for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark CINNI. The impugned order dispensed with the requirement of pre-institution mediation and granted ex-parte injunction against the appellants. The Court noted that no reasoning was assigned by the Commercial Court while dispensing with the mandatory requirements of pre-institution mediation. The appeal was allowed in the present case, and the court order dated 05.04.2025 was set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commercial Court, Varanasi to decide the application under Section 12 A of the Act after granting an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Deej Bedi on 21 May, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff, a France based company, has filed the present suit for infringement of its registered trademark. It was contended that the plaintiff came to know through the social media advertisements that the defendants are selling counterfeit products of the plaintiff. The Court held that the defendants were willingly and consciously indulged in counterfeiting the plaintiff’s product, knowing fully well the reputation of their brand value (Trademark and Copyright). Despite orders issued, the defendants failed to remove content available on their social media, and subsequently, a decree of permanent injunction was issued on behalf of the plaintiff.
The present appeal was against the respondent’s order rejecting the appellant’s patent application. The respondent had allegedly refused the application on the ground that the claim amendment allegedly converted a method claim into a system claim, altering and broadening the scope of the invention. The Court noted that the impugned order did not seem to examine how the proposed amendments broadened the scope of the original claim, therefore ordering the remand of the matter to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd vs Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd on 19 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff had filed the present suit claiming infringement of its patent and design, and the defendant assailed the validity of the patent itself claiming lack of novelty, absence of inventive step, insufficient disclosure and claims not being clearly defined. The Court after consideration of the original patent and the alleged infringing product, concluded that the defendant’s product infringes the suit patent. However, the plaintiff’s claim of design infringement was not accepted by the Court since the features claimed fell outside the scope of design protection.
The present suit arises from competing claims over the use of the trademark “NEHA”. The plaintiff had several registrations for the aforesaid mark whereas the defendant’s mark is not registered and previous applications have been either refused or abandoned. The Court noted that in the absence of registration, the defendant was required to establish prior and concurrent use of the mark which predates the Plaintiffs’ registered use but the defendant failed to do so. The defendant’s contention that the Plaintiffs failed to disclose material facts regarding its awareness of the Defendant’s use of the mark “NEHA”, was unsupported by the record. The Court held that the Plaintiffs have established prior and continuous use of the mark in relation to their goods.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Sonisha for the case summaries)