CASE STUDY ON
GROUP 9 MEMBERS-RAJNI VASHISHT
SALONI RAMAN MISHRA
SHRAVAN K JHA
PATENT CASE ONNovartis vs. Union of India &
the Indian Patent
Denial of its patent application for
Constitutional validity of section
3(d) of Indian Patent Law,1970
3(d) of the Indian Patent Act–
Prevents the Grant of a Patent for New
Forms of Known Substances, Unless It
is Demonstrated with an Increased
Patented in 35 countries &
Helpful in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.
“Imatinib Mesylate” in Beta Crystalline Form.
Restrain Indian Generic Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers from Producing Drugs based on
Not Compatible with the Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
Non Uniform Discretionary Power on the patent
of Power by Statutory Authority Corrected
by the Hierarchy of Forums provided in the Act
Expressions for Court to Understand its
meaning, would not be a ground to Declare a Section
or an Act.
of 2 Petitions by Madras High
Bench of Court Rejected the
Contention as it gave Scope to the Statutory
Authority to Exercise its Power Arbitrarily.
was Used in the Market for Many
does not Qualify the Test of
“Invention” as laid down in Section 2(1)(j)
and Section 2(1)(j (a)) of the Indian Patent
decided to stop any further
Investment in R&D in India.
PATENT CASE ON PROCESSINTRODUCTION
Class of Patents which Disclose and Claim
New Methods of Doing Business.
Includes New Types of E-Commerce, Insurance,
Banking, Tax Compliance etc.
As Per Section 3(k), Business Methods are not
patentable until a new method solves a
"technical" problem and an apparatus/system is
PATENT CASE ONYahoo
vs Controller of
Patent an Invention Titled “A Method of
Operating a Computer Network Search
The court Invalidated Yahoo’s Claim.
Claimed ‘Invention’ is Doing the Advertisement
Technical Advance Claimed Over Existing Art is
an Improvement in the Method of Doing
Section.3(k) Business Method cannot be
Advance has not improved the case.
Decision Made it Clear that Business
Methods cannot be Granted Patent Protection in
CASE ON TRADEMARK LAWS
Deals with the Mechanism of Registration,
Protection of Trademark and Prevention of
Fraudulent Trademark, Nature of
Infringements and Penalties.
Section 2 (z(b)) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,
TRADEMARK CASE ONAMUL VS LOCAL
Dairy and the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation
(GCMMF) Filed Trademark
Infringement Cases Against Two Local
Shop Owners, Amul Chashmaghar and
Amul Cut Piece Stores in the District
Union owns brand Amul, GCMMF
manages the brand.
25, 2007, Order Passed by Court that it
is a case of Infringement and Restrained
the two from using Amul trademark.
Chashmaghar Challenged the
Court’s Interim Injunction in the High
Court where Justice D N Patel Upheld
Ruling of the District Court.
Amul Chasmaghar's appeal was Rejected.
Order Passed by the Court was True, as well as
in Accordance with the Trademarks Act 1999.
Amul’s name can not be used by an other
proprietor even if the company is selling
goods other than that sold by the
proprietor, who has registered the
COPYRIGHT CASE ON Microsoft
Infringement Case Against KK
Kamlesh Kumar Jha, the owner of New Delhibased KK Software Solutions, and other
Defendants were Indulge in Software Piracy and
Counterfeiting Microsoft products.
of Rs 5.71 crore by Microsoft, due to
Illegal Softwares Seized by CBI during the
Raids in 2009.
Bulk of Microsoft softwares and
Unauthorized Packaging and Printing
Material, Blank Certificate of Authenticity
(COA) stickers, and other Infringing
7, 2013, the Delhi High Court issued
an Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction
Restraining the Defendants from Undertaking
any Further Reproduction, Storage,
Installation or Usage of Unlicensed Softwares
Ordered them to Disclose the
Details of their assets on Affidavit.
Charge Sheet Filed Against KK Jha and others
Citing Violations of the Copyright Act 1957, the
Information Technology Act 2000 and the Indian
Penal Code 1860.
The Case is currently awaiting Framing of
charges by the court, according to Microsoft.