-
Continue reading →: Bombay High Court Remands Post-Grant Opposition After Controller Relies on Undisclosed YouTube Videos
The Bombay High Court, in Ashit Padhya vs Assistent Controller of Patents and Designs, Mumbai [Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 145 of 2025; decision dated July 30, 2026], set aside an order passed by the Controller of Patents in a post-grant opposition proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after…
-
Continue reading →: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Patent Refusal for Reliance on Opponent’s Post-Hearing Document
The Calcutta High Court, in Siga Technologies Inc. vs The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Ors. [IPDAID/45/2024; decision dated July 24, 2026], set aside an order refusing patent application number 3206/KOLNP/2012, entitled “Polymorphic Forms of ST 246 and Methods of Preparation”, on the ground that the…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Reaffirms Five-Step Test and Three-Element Analysis for Inventive Step Assessment
The Delhi High Court, in Enviro Ambient Corporation vs Assistant Controller of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 74/2024; decision dated August 3, 2026], set aside the refusal of patent application number IN201917020705, entitled “Carbon Dioxide Capture Device and Method”, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court found that the impugned order…
-
Continue reading →: Patent Refusal Set Aside for Non-Consideration of Submissions
The Delhi High Court, in the case of VIB VZW & Anr. vs The Controller of Patents and Designs[C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 30/2025, decision dated April 29, 2026], set aside the order passed by the Controller in patent application number 201917035558, entitled titled “Means and Methods for Oral Protein Delivery”. The Court found…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Reaffirms the Duty of the Controller to Consider Every Patent Claim
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd. vs The Controller General of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 464/2022; decision dated May 11, 2026], set aside the rejection of patent application number 6101/DELNP/2014 after finding that the Controller failed to consider a substantial group of claims. The…
-
Continue reading →: Reasoned Orders in Patent Proceedings Are Not Optional: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Nippon Steel Corporation vs The Controller of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 488/2022; decision dated April 17, 2026] reinforces that a refusal or acceptance order in a patent proceeding must disclose intelligible reasons and demonstrate genuine engagement with the applicant’s case. The Appellant challenged the refusal of…
-
Continue reading →: Overlap with the Pre-Grant Opponent’s Reasoning Does Not Mean Lack of Independent Application of Mind by the Controller?
The Delhi High Court, in Crystal Crop Protection Limited Sudpita Dey, Assistant Controller of Patents & Ors. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 86/2022; decision dated April 4, 2026], dismissed an appeal challenging the refusal of patent application number 1607/DEL/2010 relating to an insecticidal composition comprising Fipronil (3.5% w/w) and Emamectin Benzoate (1.5% w/w) in…
-
Continue reading →: Mind Over Patent: Delhi High Court Frames 7-Step Test for Section 3(m) Exclusions
In a significant decision for patent jurisprudence, the High Court of Delhi in T-Mobile International AG and Co. KG vs The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 149/2022; decision dated August 4, 2026] has proposed comprehensive guidelines for evaluating objections under Section 3(m) of the Patents…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Refusal for Deficient Analysis of Inventive Step and Section 3(d) Objections
The decision in Grains Research and Development Corporation vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 66/2024; decision dated February 23, 2026] reinforces that the assessment of inventive step must conform to the sequential framework laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. vs Cipla Ltd., while objections under Section…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Clarifies that Sequential Administration Does Not Render a Pharmaceutical Combination a “Method of Treatment”
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Array BioPharma Inc. vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2023] is the first to acknowledge that a pharmaceutical combination claimed for simultaneous, separate, or sequential administration remains a product claim and is not excluded as a method of treatment under Section 3(i)…
Greetings
Welcome to Patents Rewind, Anand and Anand’s Patents and Designs blog that offers you an Indian perspective on issues surrounding patent and design eligibility and enforcement through latest case law and developments in the Indian patents and designs landscape.
Let’s connect
Join us!
Stay updated with our posts.
Patents Rewind - An Anand and Anand Blog 