Facts:

• Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical company, has been given a patent for the unique and innovative patent substance "Ceritinib," a medicine used to treat non-small cell lung cancer. The patent application was filed as a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application in 2007, claiming priority, and was awarded a patent on September 28, 2015.

• Novartis came across NOXALK (Natco Pharma's product) at a pharmaceutical conference in Kolkata and noted the introduction of "Ceritinib Capsules."

• Natco Pharma stated that the Ceritinib molecule is not innovative nor inventive since it is covered by the wide "Markush" formula contained in AstraZeneca's patent or two other patents issued to Rigel. Natco Pharma filed a post-grant objection to Novartis' patent based on such claims.

• Novartis filed a High Court complaint against Natco Pharma, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, account rendition, and delivering up in relation to its issued patent.

Issues:

Whether patentee rights subsist during post-grant opposition?

Decision

1. When the post-grant order was issued and the patent was cancelled, the court ruled that: 1. Patent rights are only valid for the life of a patent that has not been revoked. Patent rights operate solely as statutory rights; there are no common law rights in patents. Patent infringement proceedings can only be brought in relation to granted and active patents. Sections 62(2) and 11A(7) of the Act make it plain that no infringement action may be brought against an unregistered or cancelled patent. There would be no infringement action if a patent was not renewed. Similarly, after the patent is published, no infringement action can be initiated until the patent is granted, albeit damages can be sought with effect from the date of publication. As a result, the prolongation of an injunction, even for a single day, would be prohibited after the patent was cancelled.

2. In light of the factual matrix (specifically, the passing of the order dated 16 August 2019, revoking the patent), the interim order prohibiting the defendant from carrying out any new manufacturing of pharmaceutical preparations containing the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient ('API') Ceritinib was suspended.

Background

The plaintiff claims to be a member of the Baazi Group of Companies (abbreviated "Baazi Group") and to be a pioneering and prominent name in the Indian gaming sector. It is said to have been founded in the year 2014. Over time, the Baazi Group has provided quality gaming products and experiences to its customers under the branding and registered trademarks BAAZI, BAAZI GAMES, POKER BAAZI, RUMMYBAAZI, BALLEBAAZI, BAAZI MOBILE GAMING, and others, and has received customer recognition and approval for these gaming services.

It has also grown in popularity and repute across the world. The plaintiff alleges that it honestly and initially embraced "Baazi" as its trademark, registering multiple variants between 2014 and 2020 that were still valid, which had become the "Baazi Group's" trading identity, corporate name, and domain names.

Arguments 

For the plaintiff, Advocate Chander M. Lall contended that as the registered proprietor of the trademarks-Baazi, Baazi Games, PokerBaazi, RummyBaazi, BalleBaazi, and so on-the plaintiff had the exclusive right to use the said trademarks in relation to the goods and services it was providing.

For the defendants, advocate Abhishek Malhotra argued that no interim injunction could be granted in the current case because the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the existence of a prima facie case, the "balance of convenience," or even that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the interim injunction was refused.

Decision

The plaintiff would suffer irreparable damage and suffering, according to the single judge bench of Justice Asha Menon, since the plaintiff, which was founded in 2014, has continuously expanded the number of its customers and earnings. If the defendants are not allowed to use the name "Baazi" on their gaming platform, they will incur no harm because they utilised "WinZo" to establish themselves between 2019 and 2020.

The court stated that, in terms of balance of convenience, the defendants have their own registered trademark, namely WinZo, and can easily continue their business without interruption under its registered trademark, namely "WinZo," but by continuing to use the word "Baazi" and the terminology used by the plaintiff on its various webpages in respect of various online wagery games, the plaintiff would undoubtedly suffer injury from a business opponent.

The court ordered the defendants to remove/delete/omit or withdraw any and all references or use of the plaintiff's well-known brand and registered mark, "Baazi," in any form or manner, including, but not limited to, its mobile gaming application, promotional and marketing material, keywords, hashtags, metatags, domain name, and so on, which use constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's intellectual property rights.

Facts:

• • Bajaj Auto Limited filed a complaint against TVS Motor Company Limited under the Indian Patents Act, 1973 (hereafter, the Act) before the Single Bench of Madras High Court for infringement of its patent No.195904 related to dual spark plug engine technology in motor vehicles.

  • The complaint was brought in order to obtain a permanent injunction against the respondents in order to prevent the infringement of monopoly rights granted to them under the Act through the Patent.

  • During the pendency of the litigation, the appellants filed an application for an interim injunction preventing the respondents from infringing the patent.

  • The judge of the Single Bench issued an interim injunction prohibiting the respondent from any further infringing on the appellant's patent and thereby interfering with the launch of TVs Flame.

  • The respondents filed an appeal against the aforesaid interim ruling before the said High Court's division bench. The appeal was granted by the division bench.

  • Following then, the matter was moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India via an SLP (Special Leave Petition) and heard by Markandey Katju and Ashok Kumar Ganguly JJ.

  • The defendants argued that there was no infringement of the aforementioned patent and that they had faced several threats as a result of not launching TVS Flame.

  • Meanwhile, respondents filed a defamation complaint against Bajaj Auto Limited in Bombay High Court.

  • Seven days before the intended bike's introduction, TVS Motors filed an application to invalidate the applicant's patent.

  • Even after all of the current processes, the TVS Flame was introduced in December 2007 with no revisions to the disputed design.

Issues Raised:

• • Several issues were raised in the case, including whether the applicant's patent was valid and remained in effect. The respondents asserted that the technique employed was prior art since it had previously been used in US Honda Patent No. 4534322 dated 13th July 1985, and hence the patent should not have been awarded to them in the first place.

  • Whether there were any parallels in the design of the TVS Flame and the Bajaj Motors patent. The respondents asserted that, while the applicant's claim is for two spark plugs with two valves, the respondent's design contains two spark plugs with three valves for which they have a license.

  • Whether the injunction was required to protect the applicant's rights there under legal provisions. The respondents argued that because the validity of the patent application is still pending before the court, the applicant must not be granted injunction.

  • Whether the respondents were unfairly intimidated solely for the aim of gaining an illegitimate market monopoly.

Judgment:

During the pendency of the action for permanent injunction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued its ruling and put down several rules to be followed by subordinate courts and tribunals during the trial of patent, copyright, and trademark issues. As a result, it criticised present court procedure and is regarded as a key IPR decision.

The Supreme Court of India ruled as follows:

The Supreme Court overturned an interim decision issued by a single bench and said that the respondents may continue selling their goods in the market as long as they kept adequate records of all India and export sales. In this case, a receiver had been appointed. The conclusion was made based on the fact that if the identical combination as patented was employed, it would have resulted in infringement. However, because the design was improved, there was no violation.

The Hon'ble Court further remarked that in situations of patent infringement, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement, the parties' proceedings usually continue for the issuance of an interim injunction, which should not be the case.

Infringement of intellectual property rights cases include a wide range of issues, therefore every effort should be made to resolve them as quickly as possible. Hearings on intellectual property issues should also be held on a daily basis and concluded within 2 to 3 months.

A directive was also issued for all lower courts and tribunals to rigorously and immediately comply with the Hon'ble Court's directive. The court resorted to the decision in Improver Corporation and Ors. v. Remington Consumer Products and Ors. in order to reach this result. However, if improvement was claimed, it could not be done without paying the plaintiff a fair fee for using their invention.

Introduction

The current case posed an important legal challenge pertaining to the concept of passing off under Indian trademark law. The case concerned the infringement of a well-known mark that was unregistered in India, and it set a significant precedent for many later cases of passing off.

The plaintiff, Yahoo! Inc., is a well-known American web service provider renowned around the world for delivering web-based products. Akash Arora, the defendant in this case, began offering internet products by utilizing a phonetically similar trademark to the plaintiffs.

For the first time, the High Court of Delhi ruled that a registered website name that is similar to a trademark is entitled to equal protection.

Facts

Yahoo Incorporation (hereafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) is the owner of the documented trademark, Yahoo, as well as the domain name Yahoo.com; both the trademark and therefore the domain name developed a specific name, goodwill, and reputation.

Yahoo.com has been registered with Network Solution Inc by Yahoo Inc since 1995 and provides a wide range of web-based services.

The trademark Yahoo had been registered or was on the verge of registration in 69 countries, but the plaintiff, Yahoo Inc, had not registered its name in India.

Akash Arora (hereafter referred to as the "Defendants") began to offer web-based services similar to those provided by the Plaintiffs under the moniker Yahoo India.

The defendant also requested for the registration of an equivalent, which was authorised in due order.

The plaintiffs had sued the defendant for a perpetual injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for using a trademark that was deceptively similar to its own and passing off its services as those supplied by the plaintiffs.

Issue

Is a website name covered by intellectual property rights or not?

Whether the defendant's registration of the name Yahoo India in order to pass off services similar to those supplied by Yahoo Inc constitutes an infringement of the plaintiffs' trademark and amounts to passing-off under the relevant provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act?

THE RULE OF LAW

When a defendant actually operates under a name that is substantially similar to the name in which the plaintiff is conducting business, and that name has obtained a reputation, and the public in general is likely to be misled that the defendant's business is the plaintiff's business, or is a branch or department of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for a passing off action.

Judgement:

The fundamental principle for the action of passing off is that no man is fit to carry on his business in a way that it leads to the conviction that he is engaged in the business of another man or persuades that he is continuing or has any affiliation with the transactions carried on with another man.

The court referred to the case of Monetary Overseas v. Montari Industries Ltd.; 1996 PTC 42, in which it was held that “when a defendant works together under a name that is adequately near the name under which the plaintiff is trading and that name has gained a notoriety and the general population everywhere is likely to be misdirected that the defendant's business is the matter of the plaintiff."

If the two disputing parties are involved in a similar or comparable line of business, there are significant and vast chances for disorder and double dealing, and there is a risk of injury. In such a case, the plaintiff and defendants have a same field of movement.

The plaintiff's administrations under the domain name 'Yahoo!' have been widely marketed and elucidated all over the world. There is no question that the two trademarked names, 'Yahoo!' of the plaintiff and 'Yahooindia' of the defendants, are almost identical excluding the addition 'India' in the latter. There is a great possibility of confusion and deceiving the public, and also an internet client may be bewildered and misled into believing that both domains have a single source and association, when they do not.

As a result, the plaintiff's court order was granted.

Introduction

Liability for inducement must be based on direct infringement in the context of a patent. This is for good cause, since case law establishes unequivocally that inducement liability may arise if, but only if, direct infringement occurs.

FACTS

Respondent Massachusetts Institute of Technology was the assignee of US Patent No. 6,108,703 (the '703 patent), which claimed a method of providing electronic data over a content delivery network (CDN). The exclusive licensee was with respondent Akamai Technologies, Inc. Respondents sought to hold petitioner Limelight Networks, Inc. liable for patent infringement under an induced infringement theory, claiming that the petitioner provider was liable as it required its customers to categorize those parts of their websites which have the intention to store on the provider's servers, thereby infringing on the patent for a method of delivering electronic data using a content delivery network.  The matter was tested in front of a jury, which determined that the petitioner had violated the law and awarded more than $40 million in damages. Following the jury's decision, the Federal Circuit issued Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F. 3d 1318 (2008), in which the appellate court held that the defendant's method, which involved bidding on financial instruments to use a computer system, did not explicitly infringe the plaintiff's patent. In light of Muniauction, petitioner moved to have its prior request for judgement as a matter of law reconsidered.

ISSUE:

Could the petitioner be held liable for inducing infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C.S. § 271(b), notwithstanding the fact that no one had directly infringed the patent under 35 U.S.C.S. § 271(a) or any other statutory provision?

JUDGEMENTS

The Court held that the petitioner could not be held liable for inducing infringement under §271(b) when no one has directly infringed under §271(a) or any other statutory provision. According to the Court, liability for inducement must be predicated on direct infringement. Assuming that Muniauction's holding was correct, respondents' method has not been infringed because the performance of all of its steps was not attributable to any one person. Since direct infringement has not occurred, there can be no inducement of infringement under §271(b). The Court averred that the Federal Circuit's contrary view would deprive §271(b) of ascertainable standards and require the courts to develop two parallel bodies of infringement law. Because the question presented in the present case was clearly focused on §271(b) and presupposed that the petitioner has not committed direct infringement under §271(a), the Court declined to address whether the Federal Circuit's decision in Muniauction was correct.

Introduction

Recognizing the competing concerns, the Supreme Court of the United States interprets 35 U.S.C.S. 112, para. 2 to require that a patent's claims, when viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art with reasonable certainty about the scope of the invention. The demand for definiteness, as understood, requires clarity while acknowledging that ultimate accuracy is impossible. The criterion used by the Court is consistent with Court judgments holding that the certainty required by law in patents is not higher than is reasonable in light of their subject matter. Claims must be sufficiently specific.

FACTS

Respondent patent holder Biosig sued petitioner Nautilus, Inc. for patent infringement, claiming that Nautilus sold exercise equipment using Biosig's patented technology without obtaining a licence. The disputed patent was for a heart-rate monitor for use during exercise. Among other things, the patent claim included a living electrode and a common electrode placed in spaced connection with each other. The District Court granted Nautilus' motion for summary judgement following a hearing to determine the proper construction of the patent's claims, on the grounds that the claim term "in spaced relationship with each other" failed the definiteness requirement of Patent Act 112, which requires that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and disclaiming the patent. It provided no guidelines for calculating the optimum spacing. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that a claim was indefinite only when it was not amenable to construction or was insolubly ambiguous, and it found that the patent-in-suit satisfied that test.  

ISSUE:

In a definiteness challenge under Section 112 of the Patent Act, did the United States Court of Appeals err when it sought to determine whether the patent's claims were “amenable to construction” or “insolubly ambiguous?"

JUDGMENTS

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court ruled that a patent was invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, failed to inform people versed in the art about the extent of the invention with reasonable confidence. In deciding Nautilus' definiteness argument, the Federal Circuit considered whether the claims of the 753 patent were "amenable to interpretation" or "insolubly ambiguous." The Court said that certain phrases may generate misunderstanding in lower courts because they lack the precision required by Section 112 of the Patent Act. The Court made no ruling on the patent's validity and instead directed the Federal Circuit to resolve the matter under the indefiniteness criteria that the Court had established. The Court observed that Section 112 of the Patent Act requires a "delicate balancing." On the one hand, the definiteness criterion must accommodate for language's inherent limits. Simultaneously, a patent must be detailed enough to provide clear notice of what is claimed.