AN ASSIGNMENT OF

BUSINESS LAW

ON

CASES OF PATENTS & TRADEMARK

Submitted to

Prof. Isha Dave

By
AKASH NATHAVANI NR15083
MITUL THAKKAR NR15166
BHAGESH JAGWANI NR15042
JYOTI SHAH
HETA DOSHI NR15028
NIDHI SHAH NR15138
Batch: 2015-17

N R INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT (GLS MBA)

 PATENT

Case -1: Vringo Vs. ZTE

In January 2014, Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent

infringement suit in the Delhi High Court against ZTE, over the alleged
infringement of its patent IN200572.

In February 2014, the Delhi High court granted an ad-interim ex-parte

injunction restraining ZTE from importing, selling, advertising, installing or
operating devices that comprise the infringing components. The High court also
appointed local commissioners to inspect ZTEs premises and instructed
customs authorities to detain ZTEs shipments that may contain such devices
and to notify Vringo. In March 2014, ZTE appealed against the injunction,
which was vacated on August 5 the same year with ZTE being ordered to
deposit Rs. 17.85 crore to the court.

The suit is sub judice now. As of August 2014, ZTE had filed for the
revocation of IN200572 on grounds of it not being innovative as well as for
violating some statutory provisions under Section 64 of the Indian Patents Act.
Case -2: SYMED Labs vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

In another case of SYMED Labs vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Symed

Labs Ltd. had sued Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Laboratories before the Delhi
High Court for allegedly infringing two of its patents: IN213062 & 213063.

First patent was granted for Novel intermediates for Linezolid and
related compounds while the 063 patent was granted for A novel process for
the preparation of linezolid and related compounds. While declaring the
judgment on 9th Jan 2015, the judge convinced that the Plaintiff has got good
prima facie case in favour of SYMED.

Further the judge decided that protection to the patent processes ought to
be granted to the Plaintiff as damages will not be an efficacious remedy. Thus,
there will be irreparable loss and injury because of the long uninterrupted use of
patents, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff.

Thus the judge granted an ad interim injunction restraining Glenmark

from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or directly or
indirectly dealing in the production of Linezolid manufactured in a manner so as
to result in infringement of the Plaintiffs registered Patents.
 TRADEMARK
Case:

A lawsuit by The 3M company against Changzhou Huawei Advanced

Material Co Ltd for the use of 3N resulted in a win for 3M and "significant
damages" for 3M. It was ultimately ruled that, despite some dissimilarities in
products and pricing, the notoriety of the 3M mark and the fact that 3N had
managed to acquire clients and market share by use of the similar mark,
constituted infringement.

One analysis notes this can be indicative of trademark case results in

Chinese courts, where these matters are taken "seriously." While this particular
case was complex and confusing, 3N definitely veered into dangerous zones by
emulating the trademarked named of such a well-known brand. It was
ultimately held that the "3M" trademark had a high distinctiveness and
reputation.