-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court Stresses the Need for Controllers to be More Sensitized During Patent Examination
The Madras High Court in its decision dated August 30, 2024, in the case of Qualcomm Technologies Inc. vs Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs [CMA. (PT) No.18 of 2023] upheld the well accepted ‘solution to the problem’ approach. This approach provides a realistic and balanced assessment of the inventive…
-
Continue reading →: From Rejection to Recognition: Blackberry’s Media Management Invention Surpassed Section 3(k)
The Delhi High Court’s decision of August 30, 2024, in the case of Blackberry Limited vs Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 318/2022, 2024:DHC:6572], accentuated that inventions related to computer programs that provide technical effects within the computer and/or beyond the computer are patent eligible under Section 3(k) of the…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Faults Patent Office for Misapplication of Section 3(d) in Nippon Steel’s Patent Refusal
In the case of Nippon Steel Corporation vs The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 323/2022, 2024:DHC:6514, judgement dated August 29, 2024], the Delhi High Court allowed the Appellant’s prayer to set aside the order that refused grant of their patent application number 8620/DELNP/2012 entitled “Method…
-
Continue reading →: Ensuring Fairness in Patent Prosecution, Madras High Court Remands Cornell Research Foundation’s Application
In the case of M/S. Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [(T) CMA (PT) No. 187 of 2, judgment dated 5th July 2024], the Madras High Court allowed the Appellant’s prayer for remand of their patent application (number 4167/CHENP/2010) back to the Patent Office for…
-
Continue reading →: Human Intervention and Essentially Biological Process
Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, excludes from patentability “plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than micro organisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals”. The European Patent Convention (EPC) aligns with the spirit…
-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court Sets Aside Controller’s Decision for Disregarding Judicial Precedent
The Madras High Court in the case of Victaulic Company v The Controller of Patents and Designs, CMA (PT) No. 14 of 2024, judgment dated 26th July 2024, set aside the order of the Controller of Patents whereby the Controller had refused to proceed with a divisional application on the…
-
Continue reading →: Patent Office to Pass Reasoned Order if Applicant Does Not Show Intention to Abandon Application
In a recent judgment (Star Scientific Limited v Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT)20/2024, 30th July 2024, 2024:DHC:5643) the Delhi High Court held that the Controller of Patents cannot pass an unreasoned order merely because the Appellant was absent during the hearing. Indian patent application number 202017011947 was refused by…
-
Continue reading →: Setting Precedent for Fair Play, Delhi High Court Restrains Zydus from Marketing Biosimilar of Roche’s Pertuzumab
In an ongoing suit filed for infringement of patent numbers IN 268632 and IN 464646 by F. Hoffman La Roche AG against Zydus Lifesciences Limited, the Delhi High Court heard an urgent application by Roche pressing for urgent interim relied against Zydus. It was brought to the attention of the…
-
Continue reading →: Patentability of Inventions that Draw on Traditional Knowledge
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court upheld the Controller’s decision to refuse Indian patent application number 201721043812, entitled “Eco-friendly lamp made up of composition based on panchagavya with the combination of leaves used in traditional herbal medicine”, in M/s. The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. vs The Controller…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Directs CGPDTM to Establish Regulatory Framework for Patent and Trade Mark Agents
Recently, in Saurav Chaudhary vs Union of India & Anr. [2024:DHC:4946], the Delhi High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to permit the revival of the Petitioner’s patent application which was deemed abandoned by the Patent Office under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, for failure to file a response…
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 