IMPLEMENT DENIED: SHAREHOLDER NOT A PROPER PARTY IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT
Rule 10(2) & Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Case: Itw Gse Aps & Anr vs Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors on 12 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Background
The present matter arose from an application by Defendant No. 3 seeking deletion from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC in a patent infringement suit concerning Indian Patent No. 330145 for PCA units. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and supplying infringing units at airports in Hyderabad, Goa, and New Delhi. While Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 were identified as the main entities responsible for supply and manufacture, Defendant No. 3 was impleaded on the basis of its alleged association with Defendant No. 1 as a shareholder and controlling entity.
Submissions of the Applicant / Defendant No. 3
Defendant No. 3 argued that it was wrongly impleaded as it had no role in the alleged infringement, neither manufacturing, using, selling, nor importing the PCA units. It submitted that the plaint contained no specific allegations or reliefs against it and clarified that it functioned only as an investment holding entity with no operational or managerial control over Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It further established through an affidavit that it was not a direct shareholder of Defendant No. 1, but merely an indirect stakeholder through intermediary entities, acting as a passive investor without involvement in day-to-day operations.
Submissions of the Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs opposed the deletion of Defendant No. 3, contending that it played a significant role in the business operations of Defendant No. 1 through corporate linkages, overlapping personnel, and its acquisition of the airport business from Cavotec SA, thereby having knowledge of the ongoing patent disputes and the alleged infringing activities. They argued that Defendant No. 3 exercised control over Defendant No. 1 and was actively involved in strategic decision-making, making it a “proper party” to the suit. Additionally, the plaintiffs submitted that Defendant No. 3’s presence was necessary to ensure accountability, particularly in relation to revenue disclosures and potential liability arising from the supply of allegedly infringing PCA units to Hyderabad Airport by a related UAE entity.
Court’s Analysis
The Court reiterated that only necessary or proper parties can be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC and found that Defendant No. 3 had no direct role in the manufacture or supply of the allegedly infringing PCA units, which were supplied by Defendant No. 1 and a separate UAE entity. It held that the basis of impleadment shareholding was factually incorrect and, in any case, insufficient to impose liability due to the principle of corporate separateness. The Court further noted the absence of specific pleadings or cause of action against Defendant No. 3 and rejected the plaintiffs’ shifting and speculative grounds for impleadment, including claims for damages and disclosures. It also held that acquisition of Cavotec SA’s business did not automatically transfer liability. Accordingly, Defendant No. 3 was held to be neither a necessary nor a proper party, and its deletion was allowed without affecting the merits of the case against the remaining defendants.
Conclusion
The Court held that mere shareholding or indirect control is insufficient to impose liability, and in the absence of specific pleadings or direct involvement, a party cannot be impleaded. Accordingly, Defendant No. 3 was deleted, and the suit was directed to proceed only against Defendant Nos. 1 and 4.
SCREENING OR DIAGNOSING? INDIAN COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON CANCER PATENTS
Section 117-A, section 3(i), section 3(d), and section 2(1)(j)
Case: Geron Corporation vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs on 17 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Geron Corporation appealed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Controller’s order of 31.12.2021, which refused Indian Patent Application No. 4506/DELNP/2015. The application claimed methods to identify cancer patients likely to benefit from telomerase inhibitor therapy based on telomere length. The First Examination Report had raised objections on novelty, inventive step, patentable subject matter, and sufficiency of disclosure. Despite filing amended claims, making oral and written submissions, and explaining the technical advancement of an in vitro screening method (Claim 1), the Controller refused the patent.
Submission by Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the Controller erred in rejecting the patent under Sections 2(1)(j), 3(d), and 3(i). Claim 1, they submitted, is an in vitro screening method to select patients likely to benefit from telomerase inhibitors and is not a diagnostic or treatment method. They contended that telomere length is not a diagnostic marker, that national-phase claims should be assessed as filed, and that prior art D1 relates only to post-treatment monitoring, not pre-treatment screening. They also emphasized that the application has been granted in multiple foreign jurisdictions and criticized the Controller’s reasoning on public cost and restrictive interpretation of “diagnosis”, citing natural justice principles.
Submission by Controller:
The Controller maintained that the claimed method is a diagnostic process related to treatment, noting that it is performed on biological samples, measures telomere length (a diagnostic marker), and guides telomerase inhibitor therapy. The Controller highlighted that the title of the invention refers to “diagnostic markers for treating cell proliferative disorders,” and that Section 3(i) of the Patents Act excludes processes for medical treatment or diagnosis. The Controller also cited prior art D1, TRIPS-mandated exclusions for diagnostic methods, and judicial precedents including Chinese University of Hong Kong, Natera Inc., and Sequenom Inc.
Court’s Analysis
The Court analyzed the impugned order and noted that references to “in vitro” and “screening” were contextual and not substantive. The method involves measuring telomere length in patient samples and selecting patients for treatment if telomere length is ≤50th percentile of a standard, which directly informs therapy decisions. The Court emphasized that Section 3(i) excludes both in vivo and in vitro diagnostic and treatment methods, and that processes influencing treatment, even without confirming pathology, are non-patentable. Labeling the method as “screening” does not avoid exclusion, and granting a patent would monopolize medical decision-making.
Conclusion:
The Court upheld the Controller’s refusal, holding that the claimed in vitro screening method is, in substance, a diagnostic process guiding treatment, and therefore falls within the exclusion under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. Reliance on foreign patents or approvals was rejected, reaffirming that Indian patentability is governed solely by the Patents Act.
DELHI HC FAST-TRACKS KEY PATENT BATTLE: IN 415365 UNDER THE LENS
Section 104
Case: Ramanlal Kishandas Kothari And Anr vs Aska Equipments Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 12 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The case involves a dispute over the registered Indian Patent No. IN 415365. The plaintiffs allege that Defendant No.1/Counterclaimant has infringed their patent and seek remedies including permanent injunction, damages, and delivery of impugned goods. The defendant challenges the validity of the patent and seeks revocation. The Delhi High Court framed key issues including infringement, validity, entitlement to injunction, damages, delivery of goods, and costs.
Submissions of the Plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs argued that Defendant No.1 infringed their patent rights under IN 415365 and sought permanent injunction, damages, and delivery of infringing products. They emphasized the patent’s enforceability and the necessity to protect their proprietary rights.
Submissions of the Defendant:
The defendant counterclaimed, asserting that the patent IN 415365 is invalid and should be revoked. They disputed allegations of infringement and challenged the plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief, including injunction and damages.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court examined the pleadings and framed the issues to guide trial. It directed an expedited trial schedule, including:
- Framing of issues by 12 March 2026.
- Exchange of joint trial schedule by 19 March 2026.
- Marking of exhibits and evidence submission from March to August 2026.
- Filing of affidavits and examination of witnesses in a structured timeline.
- Submission of written arguments and final hearing between September and October 2026.
The Court noted prior interim orders: an ad-interim injunction had been granted against Defendant No.1 in February 2023 but was modified in February 2024 to allow them to bid in tenders for products that do not infringe the patent. With the trial commencing, this interim order was confirmed and made absolute during the pendency of the suit.
What Was Held:
- The Court confirmed and maintained the interim injunction as modified, allowing Defendant No.1 to continue limited tender participation.
- The trial schedule was formally approved with strict adherence requested from both parties.
- Affidavits, witness evidence, and final submissions were scheduled to ensure a structured and expedited resolution.
- I.A. 13568/2023 and I.A. 13572/2023 were disposed of in line with the trial schedule.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court has framed the core issues in the patent dispute, confirmed the interim injunction in modified form, and established a clear, expedited trial timeline. The case underscores the judiciary’s focus on balancing patent rights with procedural efficiency, setting the stage for a full trial to determine infringement and validity of Indian Patent No. IN 415365. The matter was referred to the Joint Registrar for further proceedings.
COURT CLARIFIES REGISTRABILITY OF GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES (GUI) UNDER THE DESIGNS ACT, 2000
Statutory Context: Designs Act, 2000
Core Issue: Eligibility of Graphical User Interface (GUI) for design registration
Nature of Proceedings: Statutory Appeals
Case: NEC Corporation v. Controller
Case Background
The present batch of statutory appeals has been filed under the Designs Act, 2000 and raises a common question of law: whether a Graphical User Interface (GUI) satisfies the criteria of a “design” and is thereby eligible for registration under the Act.
The appeals arise from multiple orders passed by the Controller of Designs rejecting applications for registration of GUIs on various grounds, including that GUIs do not constitute an “article”, are not applied through an industrial process, lack permanence, and are purely functional in nature. The appellants challenged these findings as legally erroneous and sought setting aside of the impugned orders.
Issues for Consideration
The Court considered the central issue of whether GUIs qualify as “designs” within the meaning of Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000.
In this context, the Court examined:
- The scope and interpretation of the terms “article” and “design”;
- Whether GUIs can be said to be applied to an article by an industrial process;
- Whether the requirement of visual appeal and judgment solely by the eye is satisfied;
- Whether the absence of permanence or physical tangibility disqualifies GUIs;
- The applicability and relevance of the Locarno Classification;
- Whether protection of GUIs under the Designs Act would result in impermissible dual protection under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Contentions of the Parties
Appellants:
The appellants contended that the Designs Office has adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of the statutory provisions. It was argued that GUIs inherently comprise visual elements such as iconography, layout, colour schemes, and composition of lines, thereby falling within the definition of “design”. The rejection of GUIs on grounds of lack of permanence, non-application through industrial process, and absence of independent existence was submitted to be misconceived. It was further contended that GUIs are capable of being associated with an “article”, such as a display screen or electronic device, and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Controller:
The Controller maintained that in the absence of any amendment to the Designs Act, GUIs cannot be recognized as registrable designs. It was contended that a design must be inseparable from a physical article and must be capable of independent existence, which GUIs lack. It was further argued that GUIs are visible only when a device is switched on, lack permanence, and are generated through software rather than an industrial process. Additionally, it was submitted that GUIs are protectable as artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957, and therefore cannot be granted dual protection.
Assistance of Amicus Curiae
In view of the importance of the issue, an Amicus Curiae was appointed to assist the Court. The Amicus submitted that the statutory framework does not require permanence or physical embodiment of a design, and that the expression “applied to an article” must be interpreted broadly. It was emphasized that GUIs satisfy the visual and aesthetic requirements under Section 2(d), and that the concept of industrial process must be interpreted in light of modern technological advancements. It was further submitted that the statutory scheme adequately addresses concerns of dual protection.
Findings of the Court
Interpretation of “Article” and “Design”:
The Court held that the definitions under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) must be interpreted broadly and purposively. A design and the article to which it is applied are distinct, and the term “article” is not restricted to purely physical or tangible objects. GUIs can be associated with articles such as display screens or electronic devices.
Industrial Process:
The Court rejected the restrictive interpretation adopted by the Controller and held that the term “any industrial process” must be construed expansively. The process of displaying a GUI through electronic and hardware systems constitutes an industrial process within the meaning of the Act.
Permanence and Visibility:
The Court clarified that there is no statutory requirement of permanence under Section 2(d). The fact that a GUI is visible only when a device is switched on does not render it non-registrable, as visibility during normal use is sufficient.
Visual Appeal and Functionality:
It was held that GUIs contain aesthetic elements capable of being judged solely by the eye. While GUIs may have functional aspects, they are not excluded from protection unless the design is purely functional without any visual appeal.
Locarno Classification:
The Court observed that while the Locarno Classification is administrative in nature and does not confer automatic registrability, its adoption indicates a legislative intent to recognize GUIs as a category of designs, subject to compliance with statutory requirements.
Dual Protection:
The Court held that concerns regarding dual protection are addressed within the statutory framework itself. A GUI, when applied industrially to an article, constitutes a design distinct from an artistic work under copyright law.
Conclusion
The Court held that there is no per se exclusion of GUIs from protection under the Designs Act, 2000. The impugned orders rejecting GUI-based applications were found to be based on incorrect legal principles and were accordingly set aside.
All matters were remanded to the Controller for fresh consideration, with directions to assess each application on its own merits in accordance with the correct interpretation of Sections 2(a) and 2(d).
The decision clarifies the legal position on GUI registrability in India and underscores the need for a technologically progressive and purposive interpretation of design law, thereby facilitating protection of modern, innovation-driven visual interfaces.
DELHI HIGH COURT DIRECTS EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF LONG-PENDING PATENT APPLICATION AMID PRE-GRANT OPPOSITION DELAYS
Order dated: 19 March 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
Case: Novartis Ag & Anr vs Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications & Ors. on 17 March, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Case Background
The present writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Respondent authorities to expedite the disposal of Indian Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011, along with multiple pending pre-grant oppositions.
The subject application, titled “Pyrrolopyrimidine Compounds as CDK Inhibitors”, was filed on 10 February 2011 as a national phase application derived from a PCT filing. The application was published in December 2011, and a request for examination was filed in August 2012. The First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 23 March 2017, followed by the Petitioner’s response in September 2017.
Subsequently, four pre-grant oppositions were filed between 2018 and 2025. Replies and supporting documents were submitted by the Petitioners. However, the application remained pending for over 15 years without final determination.
Issues for consideration:
The primary issue before the Court was whether the Respondent authorities had failed to adhere to the statutory scheme governing patent examination and pre-grant opposition proceedings, resulting in inordinate delay in disposal of the patent application.
The Court also considered whether pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 were being misused as a tool to delay the grant of patents, contrary to legislative intent.
Petitioner’s Submission:
The Petitioners contended that:
- The patent application has been pending for more than 15 years, significantly eroding the effective patent term;
- The FER was issued after an unreasonable delay of over five years;
- Multiple pre-grant oppositions were entertained over a prolonged period without scrutiny of their genuineness;
- Notices on oppositions were issued with considerable delay, further prolonging the process;
It was argued that the statutory framework envisages pre-grant oppositions as a mechanism to aid examination, not to obstruct or delay it. The Petitioners emphasized that if the patent were granted at this stage, only a small fraction of the 20-year term would remain, defeating the purpose of patent protection.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in processing the patent application. It observed that:
- The delay in issuance of the FER and subsequent handling of pre-grant oppositions reflects a failure to follow the statutory scheme;
- Pre-grant opposition proceedings are intended to assist the examination process, and cannot be permitted to become a tool for delaying grant;
- Such prolonged pendency adversely impacts both the rights of the inventor and public interest, by delaying access to beneficial inventions;
The Court further observed that the Petitioners would effectively be deprived of a substantial portion of the patent term due to administrative delays, which is contrary to the objectives of the patent regime.
Direction issue:
In light of the prolonged delay, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The Respondent authorities shall decide the patent application and all pending pre-grant oppositions expeditiously;
- The entire process shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of the order;
The Court also directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for necessary action to ensure timely processing of patent applications
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court emphasized that pre-grant opposition is a facilitative mechanism and not a delaying tactic. It held that prolonged pendency of patent applications undermines both innovation incentives and public interest, particularly given the limited statutory term of patents.
By issuing a time-bound direction for disposal, the Court reinforced the importance of efficient and timely adjudication within the patent system, ensuring that the objectives of the Patents Act, 1970 are effectively realized.
