-
Continue reading →: The Significance of Claim Construction: Case Study of Jay Switches India Pvt Ltd vs Sandhar Technologies Ltd
Claim construction plays a crucial role in patent infringement cases. It helps to define the scope of a patent by interpreting the language of the claims in light of the complete specification. This process determines the boundaries of the patent holder’s exclusive rights and plays a key role in assessing…
-
Continue reading →: Offer to Sell as Basis for Jurisdiction in Patent Infringement Suits: Delhi High Court’s Clarification
In the case of Kubota Corporation vs Godabari Agro Machinery and Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [CS(COMM) 655/2023], the Delhi High Court examined whether an “offer for sale” of an infringing product is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC. The Plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, brought a suit…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court on Quia Timet Patent Suits and Territorial Jurisdiction
The Delhi High Court recently passed its judgement in the case of Helsinn Healthcare SA vs AET Laboratories Private Limited & Anr. [CS(COMM) 1188/2024], deciding two interlocutory applications: one filed by the Plaintiff seeking an interim injunction and another by the Defendants seeking vacation of the ex parte ad interim…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court’s Analysis in Interim Injunction Proceedings
The Delhi High Court came up with key findings in deciding the interim injunction application of the Plaintiff in Aquestia Limited vs Automat Industries Private Limited & Ors. [CS (COMM) 860/2024]. The judgment revisits foundational principles on the nature of patent rights, claim construction, and infringement analysis, particularly where the…
-
Continue reading →: Determining Jurisdiction in Patent Infringement Suits: Madras High Court Clarifies
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaint must be presented before a Court having territorial jurisdiction. To determine whether a Court has jurisdiction, it must be shown that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within that jurisdiction. Recently, in the case of Universal Speciality Chemicals…
-
Continue reading →: Interpreting Section 3(i): Delhi High Court Clarifies What Constitutes a Diagnostic Method
By Jigyasa Pareek In a significant batch of decisions pronounced on October 9, 2025, the Delhi High Court undertook a comprehensive interpretation of Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, which excludes “any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic, diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment of human beings or any…
-
Continue reading →: Wake-Up Call to the Patent Office: Division Bench Restores Discipline in Obviousness and Section 3(d) Analysis
The jurisprudence surrounding Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, which defines an “inventive step” as a feature involving a technical advance or economic significance that makes an invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art, has long been shaped by the F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. vs Cipla…
-
Continue reading →: Sowing the Seeds of Distinction: Delhi HC on Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods
By Jigyasa Pareek Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970, excludes from patentability “a method of agriculture or horticulture”. This provision was introduced on the recommendations of the Justice Ayyangar Committee Report (1959), which recommended that inventions relating to plant propagation by asexual methods be excluded from patent protection. But…
-
Continue reading →: One Hearing Too Few: Calcutta HC on the Dual Tracks of Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition
By Jigyasa Pareek Under the Patents Act, 1970, when a patent application is under process for grant and a pre-grant opposition is filed under Section 25(1), the Act sets into motion two distinct and parallel proceedings: The original examination of the patent application, which is conducted under Sections 12, 14,…
-
Continue reading →: Confidentiality Clubs, Redaction, and FRAND in SEP Disputes: Delhi High Court’s Ruling in Nokia vs Asus, Acer & Hisense
The Delhi High Court, in its common judgement dated September 22, 2025, in Nokia Technologies OY vs Asustek Computer Inc. & Anr., Nokia Technologies OY vs Acer Inc. & Anr., and Nokia Technologies OY vs Hisense Group & Anr. [CS(COMM) 643/2025, 644/2025, 645/2025; 2025:DHC:8511], has delivered an important ruling on…
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.
