Case Law Compendium on the Patents Act, 1970 (India): Supreme Court Judgments
Part B
Case Law Compendium on the Patents Act, 1970 (India)
I. Supreme Court Judgments
1. Novartis AG v. Union of India
Citation: (2013) 6 SCC 1
Principle:
?
Interpreted Section 3(d)
?
Prevented “evergreening” of pharmaceutical
patents
?
Strengthened access to affordable medicines
2. Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal
Industries
Citation: (1979) 2 SCC 511
Principle:
?
Defined inventive step and obviousness
?
Mere workshop improvement not patentable
3. Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd.
Citation: (2019) 3 SCC 381
Principle:
?
Patentability of biotechnology inventions
?
Interplay between Patent Act and Seeds Act
4. Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Aloys Wobben
Citation: (2014) 5 SCC 1
Principle:
?
Clarified jurisdictional overlap between
revocation and infringement
5. M/s Bishwanath Prasad v. Hindustan Metal Industries
Citation: (1979) 2 SCC 511
Principle:
?
Test of non-obviousness reiterated
6. Ayyangar Committee Reference Case (contextual influence)
Principle:
?
Though not a judicial decision, strongly
influenced patent law policy
7. Raj Prakash v. Mangat Ram Chowdhry
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 193
Principle:
?
Patent must involve technical advancement
II. Delhi High Court (Most Influential Patent Jurisprudence)
8. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.
Citation: 2009 (40) PTC 125 (Del)
Principle:
?
Detailed analysis of patent infringement
tests
?
Doctrine of equivalents discussed
9. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Citation: 2015 (61) PTC 1 (Del)
Principle:
?
Interim injunction principles in pharma patents
10. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India
Citation: 2014 (60) PTC 277 (Del)
Principle:
?
First compulsory license case upheld
11. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intex Technologies
Citation: 2015 (62) PTC 90 (Del)
Principle:
?
Standard Essential Patents (SEP) and
FRAND licensing
12. Ericsson v. Micromax Informatics Ltd.
Principle:
?
Royalty determination in SEP disputes
13. Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.
Principle:
?
Patent validity vs public interest in medicines
III. Other High Court Judgments
14. NATCO Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation
Citation: 2013 (54) PTC 225
Principle:
?
First compulsory license under Section 84
15. Chemtura Corporation v. Union of India
Principle:
?
Scope of pre-grant opposition
16. UCB Farchim SA v. Cipla Ltd.
Principle:
?
Validity of pharmaceutical patents
17. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Allergan Inc.
Principle:
?
Patent revocation and invalidity
18. Vringo Infrastructure Inc. v. ZTE Corporation
Principle:
?
Jurisdiction in patent infringement
19. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International
Ltd.
Principle:
?
FRAND compliance in telecom patents
20. Symed Labs Ltd. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Principle:
?
Injunction granted in pharma patent infringement
21. Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd.
Principle:
?
Patent infringement and damages
22. Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Rajesh Bansal
Principle:
?
Enforcement of SEP patents in India
IV. Key Themes Emerging from Case Law
1. Patentability Standards
?
Strict scrutiny under Section 3(d)
?
Innovation must show technical advancement
2. Public Interest vs Monopoly
?
Courts balance:
?
Patent rights
?
Access to medicines
3. Pharmaceutical Patent Dominance
?
Majority of litigation relates to:
?
Drug patents
?
Generic competition
4. Rise of Technology Patent Litigation
?
SEPs and telecom disputes increasing
5. Strong Injunction Jurisprudence
?
Courts actively grant:
?
Interim injunctions
?
Damages
V. Conclusion
Indian patent jurisprudence has evolved through a robust
body of case law, particularly driven by:
?
Supreme Court principles on patentability and
public interest
?
Delhi High Court’s leadership in technical
patent disputes
The courts have consistently aimed to:
?
Prevent misuse of patent monopoly
?
Encourage genuine innovation
? Protect public welfare
Blog by:
Jayprakash B. Somani
Advocate, Supreme Court of India & President of Nani Palkhiwala National Law Club
Cell: PA 9322188701
www.jayprakashsomani.com
www.supremecourtlawfirm.com
