Singh & Singh Law Firm

Singh & Singh Law Firm Founded in 1997 by Mr. Maninder Singh & Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP has grown Singh and Singh was founded by Mr. Singh. Mr.

Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP is an Indian law firm with years of experience in providing services inter alia in the field of Intellectual Property Law, Media and Telecommunications Laws, Arbitration, Competition Law, Law of Taxation, Drugs Regulatory Laws. With a highly qualified and experienced team of legal professionals, the Firm can identify the core of a client's issues to provide suitable so

lutions. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate (Former Additional Solicitor General of India) and Mrs. Maninder Singh, was designated as Senior Advocate in the year 2008 and had since retired from Singh and Singh. In the year 2012, Singh and Singh was converted into LLP with 5 partners, however, upon designation of Mrs. Singh as Senior Advocate in December, 2013, the LLP was reduced to 4 partners. Since then, the Firm is running as a professionally managed firm and currently has 5 partners and 4 associate partners each an expert in their respective practice area. The Firm further has over 40 attorneys and patent agents. The expertise and experience brought in by the Founding Partners, coupled with their desire to create a youthful and energetic law firm, has inspired the aggregation of a dynamic team of lawyers and professionals within the Firm, who continues to operate and advance the legacy of Singh and Singh. Highly experienced and qualified individuals make up the respective teams at the Firm who have a rich experience in handling intricate and crucial matters. The Firm has rich experience in Litigation, Advisory, Regulatory, Prosecution and Enforcement. The Firm has grown over the years, to become one of India's leading Law Firms in the field of Intellectual Property Litigation, Information Technology, TMT and related aspects, as also technology, Media and Telecommunication Laws and has been awarded both, individually and as a firm, in the past years. The Firm has been ranked in top tiers by various international and national publications.

The Ld. Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 13.07.2023 pronounced the judgment in the Ericsson v. CCI batc...
14/07/2023

The Ld. Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 13.07.2023 pronounced the judgment in the Ericsson v. CCI batch matters, which raised pertinent questions relating to the jurisdiction of the CCI in cases relating to exercise of rights by a patentee under the Patents Act, 1970.

In this landmark and highly anticipated verdict, the Hon’ble High Court agreeing with Ericsson’s case observed that the Patents Act is a complete code in itself which contains sufficient safeguards to deal with instances of abuse of rights by a patentee.

In observing that the Patents Act will prevail over the Competition Act, being a special statute over the latter, the Hon'ble Court held that regard must be had to (i) subject matter in question, (ii) the intendment of the statutes and (iii) relevant provisions. Addressing the same, it was observed that the dispute between Ericsson and private respondents like Intex, Micromax and i-Ball, pertained to alleged anti-competitive and abusive conduct of a patentee in exercise of its statutory rights granted under the Patents Act. Since the genesis of the dispute before the CCI was arising out of the Patents Act, it was held that the issues raised do not fall within the ambit of CCI’s jurisdiction.

The Bench also held that the inter-se settlements and ex*****on of licenses between the parties, also oust the jurisdiction of the CCI as the very genesis of the complaint filed before it does not survive when the parties enter a settlement amongst themselves.

Accordingly, the decision of the Ld. Single Judge was set aside and all proceedings initiated by the CCI against Ericsson have been quashed.

The judgment brings in the much needed clarity on the issue of alleged overlap and repugnancy between the Patents Act and the Competition Act and clarifies that none exists in the facts of the present case. It was clarified by the Hon'ble Court that both acts operate within their own separate spheres.

Singh & Singh Law Firm represented TLM Ericsson (Publ) in the batch appeal and was led by SAYA CHOUDHARY, Partner Ashutosh Kumar, Partner, along with Vrinda Bagaria, Principal Associate, Vinod C., Principal Associate and Radhika Pareva, Associate.

Read more via - https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiU02cd4rIPkk0QAEugLdGcskXow?e=1O9HFk

We are pleased to inform that Singh & Singh Law Firm successfully represented Mold-Tek Packaging Limited in a patent and...
30/06/2023

We are pleased to inform that Singh & Singh Law Firm successfully represented Mold-Tek Packaging Limited in a patent and design infringement suit titled Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v Shree Plastico Limited and Anr. bearing number CS(COMM) 404/2023, before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

The Plaintiff, Mold-Tek Packaging Limited is a leader in manufacturing pails, plastic containers, lids etc. and have various patents and design registration for its products. The captioned suit was related to infringement of two patents and two design registrations. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants are passing off the products of the Plaintiff and further infringing its registered designs and patents.

Vide order dated 02.06.2023, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the prayers of the Plaintiff for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendants restraining them from infringing two patents and two registered designs of the Plaintiff. Further, the Hon’ble Court also allowed the prayer for ex*****on of a Local Commission to inspect and seize the infringing goods from the premises of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff was represented by Ashutosh Kumar (Partner), Vinod C. (Principal Associate) and Radhika Pareva (Associate) Singh & Singh Law Firm.

Here is the order copy for your reference:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiU02cd4rIPkkzTU9OlcJxJTYqtk?e=lGTnsT

We are pleased to convey that Singh & Singh Law Firm successfully represented Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd before the...
15/05/2023

We are pleased to convey that Singh & Singh Law Firm successfully represented Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd v. Rajluxmi Publication & Ors. in CS (COMM.) 218/2023.

Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd is a leading name in the arena of publication of books catering to several academic domains. It had filed the captioned suit against the Defendants seeking to restrain them from using its trademark “GUNJAN” on Hindi Books which are widely read and referred by students in classes 1-8 CBSE affiliated schools.

The said suit was listed before the Hon’ble Court on 17.04.2023, on which date the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the Defendants from using the said mark. The Hon’ble Court was also pleased to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize the infringing goods (books).

The Plaintiff was represented by Advocates Ashutosh Kumar (Partner), Vinod C. (Principal Associate), and Swarnil Dey (Associate).

Here is the order copy for your reference
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiU02cd4rIPkkxTq3HYBepENNAMZ?e=m12l2Y

Knowledge is responsible for ideas and ideas are responsible for innovation! Singh & Singh Law Firm wishes you all a Hap...
26/04/2023

Knowledge is responsible for ideas and ideas are responsible for innovation! Singh & Singh Law Firm wishes you all a Happy World Intellectual Property Day!

We are pleased to share that Saya Choudhary Kapur, Partner, Singh & Singh Law Firm has been one of the contributors to A...
26/04/2023

We are pleased to share that Saya Choudhary Kapur, Partner, Singh & Singh Law Firm has been one of the contributors to An International Guide to Patent Case Management for Judges by World Intellectual Property Organization.

An International Guide to Patent Case Management for Judges is a comprehensive, accessible and practical guide to the different stages of patent litigation. Focused on ten patent heavy jurisdictions, it has applicability around the world and for all actors in the IP ecosystem.

The India Chapter was authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Gautam Patel, Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Manmohan Singh

The compete guide can be accesed here
https://www.wipo.int/about-patent-judicial-guide/en

May this Eid brings fun, happiness and God’s endless blessings. Singh & Singh Law Firm wishes Eid Mubarak to you and you...
21/04/2023

May this Eid brings fun, happiness and God’s endless blessings. Singh & Singh Law Firm wishes Eid Mubarak to you and your family!

We are pleased to inform that Singh & Singh Law Firm successfully represented Mr. Sharad Mehra and Stanvac Prime Pvt. Lt...
17/04/2023

We are pleased to inform that Singh & Singh Law Firm successfully represented Mr. Sharad Mehra and Stanvac Prime Pvt. Ltd (Defendants 1 and 2) in trademark infringement suit CS(COMM) 561/2022 - Sanjay Mehra v. Sharad Mehra & Ors.

The matter related to divesting of the trademark SUPERON between brothers Mr. Sanjay Mehra and Mr. Sharad Mehra in terms of a Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 10.09.2021. The Plaintiff Mr. Sanjay Mehra alleged that the name SUPERON was being used by Mr. Sharad Mehra for his business in violation of the MoFS dated 10.09.2021 and subsequent sale deed dated 16.12.2021, by which Mr. Sanjay Mehra claimed that all rights in the trademark had been transferred to him vis-a-vis the Indian market.

However, a challenge was raised on behalf of Mr. Sharad Mehra and his group of companies that the parent MoFS dated 10.09.2021 which contemplated division of the business of the company Superon Shweissteknik India Pvt. Ltd. contained an arbitration clause which ousted the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Vide judgment dated 10.04.2022, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court allowed the application preferred by Mr. Sharad Mehra and his group companies referring the dispute to arbitration for resolution.

The Singh & Singh Law Firm team was led by Ashutosh Kumar (Partner), along with Vrinda Bagaria (Senior Associate), Vinod C. (Senior Associate) and Munesh Sharma (Associate).

Mr. Chander Lall, and Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advs. argued the matter for the Defendants.

The dispute was handled in collaboration with Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan.

Here is the order copy for your reference
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiU02cd4rIPkkwD3ZNJoURrfJ6L7?e=4tbdvy

The never ending debate that DD Free Dish, the content distributing arm of Doordarshan (Prasar Bharti) is not similarly ...
17/04/2023

The never ending debate that DD Free Dish, the content distributing arm of Doordarshan (Prasar Bharti) is not similarly placed with other Direct-To- Home operators such as Dish TV, Tata Sky, etc. has been once again put to rest by the Hon'ble Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellant Tribunal vide it's judgement dated 11.04.2023.

Dealing with a petition filed by Videocon D2H (now known as Dish TV India) against Sony Pictures seeking a refund of Rs 28 crores on account of the fact that the channel 'Sony Pal' is being provided to DD Free Dish free of cost, the Tribunal held that DD Free Dish cannot be differentiated from the Petitioner - Videocon D2H as both are service providers in terms of the TRAI Act 1997.

Further, considering the statement and object of the said Act coupled with various Interconnection Regulations passed by TRAI from time to time, the Tribunal held that it was not only necessary but mandatory to maintain a level playing field in the broadcasting and cable sector, to ensure parity and non - discrimination.

Appreciating the past judgments of the expert Tribunal, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that offering of 'Sony Pal' channel by Sony Pictures, free of cost to DD Free Dish and simultaneously charging Videocon D2H for the same channel is contrary to the prevailing regulations and law. Accordingly, while dismissing its counter claim, the Tribunal directed Sony Pictures to refund an amount of Rs. 28 crores to Videocon towards the monthly subscription fee collected by it for the channel 'Sony Pal'

The Petitioner was represented by Tejveer Singh Bhatia (erstwhile Managing Partner of the Firm) and Kunal Vats (Principal Associate)

Here is the order copy for your reference
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiU02cd4rIPkkn-orJ5zMlu3Q1Eg?e=Vi38bt

With immense pride Singh & Singh Law Firm is delighted to share the recent rankings from Managing IP, where firm has bee...
05/04/2023

With immense pride Singh & Singh Law Firm is delighted to share the recent rankings from Managing IP, where firm has been featured as firm as IP Stars 2023 for and .

The IPSTARS 2023 trademark rankings are for the leading firms for trademark work in more than 50 jurisdictions.

For more details, visit https://www.ipstars.com/Jurisdiction/India/Rankings/8428

31/03/2023

We are pleased to report that Singh & Singh Law Firm successfully represented Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) (hereinafter, “Ericsson”) in cross appeals against M/s Intex Technologies Ltd (hereinafter, “Intex”). In its judgment dated 29th March, 2023, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court while affirming the Ld. Single Judge’s findings, has directed Intex to make deposit of interim royalty directly to Ericsson as determined by the Ld. Single Judge within a period of 4 weeks.

In this seminal and landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Court has also dealt with the prevalent jurisprudence relating to SEPs and FRAND and laid down guiding principles for Courts in India to follow in such cases:

1. FRAND is not a one-way street and the same casts an obligation on both the SEP owner and implementor to negotiate and act in conformance with the FRAND protocol specified under the CJEU judgment in Huawei v. ZTE;
2. Parties’ conduct during negotiation of a FRAND license is a relevant factor for determining willingness;
3. Disclosure of third-party license agreements by an SEP owner during negotiations is not mandatory or a precursor for the implementor to revert with a FRAND counter-offer. The implementor can place reliance on its own licenses executed with third-parties and other SEP proprietors to formulate an appropriate counter-offer or to determine if the SEP proprietor’s offer is FRAND;
4. There is no embargo on grant of injunctions (both at the interim and final adjudication stage) against an implementor who is unwilling;
5. If the negotiations between parties fail, that does not mean that an implementor can continue to use the technology of the SEP proprietor for free, without making any payment for such use;
6. Implementors are mandated to make certain deposits/furnish security in favour of the SEP proprietor in case negotiations fail, in order to balance the right of the SEP owner;
7. Infringement is SEP cases can be established by using claim charts;
8. Portfolio licensing on a global basis is in conformance with commercial practices in the industry and is FRAND;
9. The finding of the Ld. Single Judge and four-factor test prescribed in paragraph 77 of the Nokia v. Oppo judgment is contrary to law;
10. Under the Patent Rules, 2022 courts can direct deposits of some kind of security even on the first date of hearing;
11. The peculiarities of the English system of conducting an SEP trial cannot be applied in the Indian context, as the realities of the Indian legal system should be considered;

All of the aforementioned findings are of extreme relevance, having huge global ramifications.

Team Singh & Singh Law Firm - SAYA CHOUDHARY (Partner), Ashutosh Kumar (Partner), Vrinda Bagaria (Senior Associate), Vinod C. (Senior Associate) and Radhika Pareva (Associate).

Team Singh & Singh Law Firm was led by Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr Adv and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv.

Here is the order copy for your reference.

30/03/2023

In a patent matter before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court concerning the drug linagliptin, Singh & Singh Law Firm successfully represented Alkem Laboratories and Mankind Pharma Ltd, resulting in denial of injunction to Boehringer Ingelheim in a judgment pronounced on 29.03.2023. The judgment holds that the species patent IN 301 is vulnerable to challenge under Section 64(1)(a) i.e. prior claiming and that filing of multiple patent claims in respect of the same invention amounts to evergreening and re-monopolizing, which strike at the root of patent law in India. The judgment specifically notes that the conduct of the Plaintiffs defeats the rights of the manufacturers and is also detrimental to the public interest.

Dismissing all injunction applications in all the connected matters, the Hon’ble Court imposed a cost of Rs 2,00,000 payable to each Defendant, and an additional cost of Rs 2,00,000 in favour of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, on account of detriment caused to public interest. The Defendants have been directed to maintain complete accounts of manufacture and sale of the impugned products and file statement of accounts on half yearly basis.

The matter was argued by Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan for Alkem Laboratories, with the team of Singh & Singh Law Firm comprising Bitika Sharma (Partner), Nitya Sharma (Senior Associate), Vrinda Pathak (Senior Associate) and George Vithayathil (Associate).

Here is the judgement copy for your reference.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiU02cd4rIPkknR0h53mDPWA1Mxl?e=3utSho

Bitika Sharma, Partner, Singh & Singh Law Firm and Vrinda Pathak, Senior Associate, Singh & Singh Law Firm attended the ...
07/03/2023

Bitika Sharma, Partner, Singh & Singh Law Firm and Vrinda Pathak, Senior Associate, Singh & Singh Law Firm attended the 12th Edition of Pharma IPR Conference on 1-3 March 2023 at Novotel Hotel Mumbai International Airport by Informa Markets

Address

C-139, Defence Colony
Delhi
110024

Opening Hours

Monday 9:30am - 8pm
Tuesday 9:30am - 8pm
Wednesday 9:30am - 8pm
Thursday 9:30am - 8pm
Friday 9:30am - 8pm
Saturday 9:30am - 8pm

Telephone

+911149826000

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Singh & Singh Law Firm posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Singh & Singh Law Firm:

Share