-
Continue reading →: Auxiliary Claims Get Green Signal
In a notable decision in Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH vs Controller General of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 302/2022, decision dated April 16, 2025], the Delhi High Court affirmed the validity of auxiliary claims in patent prosecution. The Court allowed the Appellant’s request to amend and introduce an auxiliary set of claims…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Clarifies the Approach for Determining Patent Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
The Delhi High Court, in its decision dated May 7, 2025, in the case of Crystal Crop Protection Limited vs Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors [CS(COMM) 196/2024, 2025:DHC:3382], clarified the approach for determining patent infringement under the ‘Doctrine of Equivalents’. The Court emphasized that the first step in this…
-
Continue reading →: Refusal Based on Formal Objection to General Power of Attorney? No More, Says Calcutta High Court
As per the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, Power of Attorney (PoA) is a legal instrument that empowers the individual holding the PoA (agent) to act on behalf of the individual who executes the PoA (the principal). There are two main types of PoA: General Power of Attorney (GPA) and…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Restores Patent Application Deemed Abandoned Noting Agent’s Bona Fide Mistake
In the case of Ciena Corporation vs Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C)-IPD 15/2025 & CM 49-51/2025], the Delhi High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to restore the Petitioner’s PCT national phase application which was deemed abandoned by the Controller under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court…
-
Continue reading →: Does Section 3(b) Justify Blanket Refusal of Tobacco-Related Inventions? Calcutta HC Demands a Reasoned Approach
Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, excludes from patentability any invention whose primary or intended use or commercial exploitation could be contrary to public order or morality, or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal, or plant life, health, or the environment. In the case of R J Reynolds…
-
Continue reading →: Foreign Findings Not Binding: Delhi High Court Affirms Controller’s Duty to Independently Assess Merits
In the case of Milliken and Company vs Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 15/2023], the Delhi High Court set aside the order passed by the Controller that refused patent application number 6093/DELNP/2013, entitled “Additive Compositions and Thermoplastic Polymer Compositions Comprising the Same”. The Court addressed some critical…
-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 3(m)
In Robert Bosch Limited vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs [CMA(PT)/1/2024], the Madras High Court set aside the order passed by the Controller that refused patent application number 201944047460, entitled “Method of Preheating and Controlling the Temperature of Fuel injected into a Combustion Engine”. The refusal was based on…
-
Continue reading →: Evidence in Progress: Calcutta High Court Emphasizes Need to Evaluate Additional Data Filed During the Process of Hearing
In a recent case, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd. vs Controller of Patents and Designs and Ors. [IPDPTA/119/2023], brought before the Calcutta High Court, the Appellant sought to set aside the order passed by the Controller concerning the refusal of the Appellant’s application number 3939/KOLNP/2010, entitled “Phosphorous Derivatives as Kinase Inhibitors”.…
-
Continue reading →: Signed Into Existence: Delhi High Court Interprets ‘Date of Grant’ in Patent Law
When is a patent grant considered final and legally effective? Is it the moment the Controller signs the order of grant under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, or only upon the order’s upload on the official website of the Indian Patent Office, or upon generation of the certificate…
-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 3(k) of The Patents Act in Tekelec vs Controller of Patents
The Madras High Court has once again weighed in on the scope of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which excludes a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms from patent protection. In its recent decision in the case of Tekelec Inc. vs The…
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.
