Skip to content
Visit us at
www.anandandanand.com
Search
PATENTS REWIND : AN ANAND AND ANAND BLOG
Category:
Section 2(1)(ja)
Overlap with the Pre-Grant Opponent’s Reasoning Does Not Mean Lack of Independent Application of Mind by the Controller?
Delhi High Court Clarifies that Sequential Administration Does Not Render a Pharmaceutical Combination a “Method of Treatment”
Delhi High Court Reiterates that Patent Refusals Must Be Reasoned and Based on Clearly Identified Grounds
Delhi High Court on Genus-Species Patents, Coverage vs. Disclosure, and Section 3(d)
Patents, Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity: Analysing the Patent–Biodiversity Interface in Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Controller
Defining “Efficacy” Beyond Pharmaceuticals: Delhi High Court’s Progressive Interpretation of Section 3(d) in Syngenta v. Controller
Delhi High Court Reaffirms Stringent Standard for Synergy Under Section 3(e) and Permits Additional Prior Art at Appellate Stage
Can New Prior Art Be Introduced in Hearing Notices? Calcutta High Court Says It Violates the Statutory Scheme
Biotyx Medical’s Patent Application Returns for Reassessment Following Delhi High Court’s Decision
Madras High Court Stresses the Need for Controllers to be More Sensitized During Patent Examination
Subscribe
Subscribed
Patents Rewind - An Anand and Anand Blog
Join 108 other subscribers
Sign me up
Already have a WordPress.com account?
Log in now.
Patents Rewind - An Anand and Anand Blog
Subscribe
Subscribed
Sign up
Log in
Report this content
View site in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar
Patents Rewind - An Anand and Anand Blog 