-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court Allows Execution of U.S. Letters Rogatory in Pfizer’s Patent Dispute
Letters Rogatory (also known as Letters of Request) are formal requests issued by a Court in one jurisdiction to a Court in another jurisdiction, seeking judicial assistance in gathering evidence, summoning witnesses, or performing other judicial acts necessary for legal proceedings. These requests are typically made under international treaties or…
-
Continue reading →: Is the Right to File a Divisional Application Conditional? The Madras High Court Disagrees
The Madras High Court addressed the scope of Section 16(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 in its recent decision in University College London vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [CMA(PT) No.45 of 2024]. Section 16(1) permits an applicant to file a further application, referred to as divisional application,…
-
Continue reading →: Can New Prior Art Be Introduced in Hearing Notices? Calcutta High Court Says It Violates the Statutory Scheme
In the case ofAtlas Copco Airpower Naamloze Vennootschap vs The Controller General of Patents and Designs & Anr. [IPDPTA/12/2022], the Calcutta High Court dealt with the procedural irregularity of introducing new prior art references for the first time at the stage of hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act,…
-
Continue reading →: Can a Hearing Notice Be Called a Second Examination Report? Madras High Court Says No
In the case of M/s. Haldor Topsoe A/S vs Controller of Patents & Designs (Writ Petition No. 2943 of 2022), the Madras High Court permitted the revival of the patent application number 297/CHE/2012 which was deemed abandoned under Section 21 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court quashed the impugned…
-
Continue reading →: Excluded Means Excluded: Court Finds Controller’s Reliance on Technical Drawing from Chinese Prior Art Excluded Under Rule 61(2) Impermissible
The Madras High Court, in the case of Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.[CMA(PT) No.5 of 2025], set aside an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs that revoked patent no. 452008, granted in favour of Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd., entitled…
-
Continue reading →: Section 3(b) is the Intent Principle, Not the Effect or Harm Principle, Says Calcutta HC
We had discussed in our earlier post how the Calcutta High Court, in R J Reynolds Tobacco Company vs Controller General of Patents [IPDPTA/31/2023], noted that “Section 3(b) focuses on the primary or intended use or commercial exploitation of an invention. The underlying interest being ethical considerations”. In a similar…
-
Continue reading →: Court Upholds Agreed Terms of Reference in Patent Dispute: Orders Defendant to Disclose Manufacturing Process Documents
In an ongoing infringement suit in Syngenta Limited and Anr. vs GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. [CS(COMM) 87/2020], concerning two process patents related to the manufacture of Azoxystrobin, the Delhi High Court directed the defendant, GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., to disclose documents related to the technical features of its…
-
Continue reading →: Old Opposition, New Rules? How are the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 Shaping Pending Patent Proceedings
Patent Rules, 2003, saw a significant change on March 15, 2024, when the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 came into effect. One of the notable changes was to Rule 55, which governs how pre-grant oppositions are handled. Under the new Rule 55(3), the Controller is obligated to provide a reasoned order…
-
Continue reading →: From Method Claim to Composition Claim
In its recent decision in Akebia Therapeutics Inc. vs Controller of Patents and Designs [CMA(PT)/64/2024], the Madras High Court set aside the order passed by the Controller in national phase application number 201647000423, entitled “Composition and Methods for Treating Anemia”, and remanded the application to the Patent Office for re-consideration.…
-
Continue reading →: Cut, Copy, Paste is Not Justice: Calcutta High Court Sets a Standard for Fair Proceedings under the Patents Act
In its recent decision in the case of UPL Ltd. vs Astec Lifeciences Limited & Anr. [IPDPTA/2/2024], the Calcutta High Court made some key observations regarding the handling of proceedings under Sections 14, 15, and 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. In the instant case, the Appellant challenged the refusal…
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 