-
Continue reading →: Wrongly Published Patent Application Cannot be Cited as Prior Art
The Madras High Court, in Dr. Vandana Parvez vs The Controller of Patents [CMA(PT) No.33 of 2023], addressed the issue of erroneous citation of a prior art that stood duly withdrawn under the provisions of the Patent Act, 1970. In the instant case, the subject patent application numbered 202041010232 was…
-
Continue reading →: Consequence of Incomplete Response to Examination Report Objections: Abandonment vs. Refusal of Patent Applications
The ability to appeal the decisions, orders or directions of the Controller of Patents is a critical statutory right available to patent applicants. However, Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, delineates specific boundaries regarding which decisions, orders or directions can be appealed. Notably, orders passed under Section 21(1) of…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Brings Clarity to the Application of Section 59(1) of the Patents Act
The Delhi High Court clarified Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 in their judgment in The Regents of the University of California Address for service in India Lexorbis vs Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 143/2022]. Section 59(1) of the Patents Act reads as follows.…
-
Continue reading →: Understanding Section 59 of the Patents Act: Insights from Delhi High Court Decision
In its recent decision in Honeywell International Inc vs The Controller of Patents [CA (COMM. IPD PAT) 396/2022], the Delhi High Court set aside the order passed by the Controller of Patents in application number 3150/DELNP/2010 and remanded the application to the Patent Office for fresh consideration. The Appellant, in…
-
Continue reading →: Section 3(d), Industrial Applicability and Inventive Step: IIT Madras’s Patent DisputeIIT Madras’s application number 4032/CHE/2013 was refused by the Controller of Patents on grounds of non-patentability under section 3(a) and section 3(d) of the Patents Act, lack of industrial applicability and lack of inventive step. IIT Madras preferred an appeal against said refusal before the Madras High Court which recently…
-
Continue reading →: Mosaicing and Common General Knowledge in Patent Obviousness EvaluationObviousness analysis entails consideration of several key factors to determine whether an invention meets the legal requirements for patentability. These include conducting a prior art search, determining the notional person skilled in the art (PSITA), considering common general knowledge, assessing the combination of prior art, mitigating hindsight bias, and ensuring…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction in Ceritinib Litigation
In the legal dispute between Novartis and Natco Pharma, in Novartis AG & Anr. vs Natco Pharma Limited [CS(COMM) 229/2019], the Delhi High Court has been addressing infringement of patent IN 276026 that claims the protein kinase inhibitor Ceritinib. The Court granted an interlocutory injunction on January 9, 2023, restraining…
-
Continue reading →: Himachal Pradesh High Court’s Analysis of Patent Vulnerability in Interim Injunction Proceedings
The Himachal Pradesh High Court came up with key findings in deciding the interim injunction application of the Plaintiff in Boehringer Ingelheim International & Ors vs Eris Lifesciences Limited [Civil Suit (COMS) No. 09 of 2023]. Boehringer had alleged infringement of their patent rights in Indian patent number 268846 that…
-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court’s Insights on Person Skilled in the Art
Obviousness analysis is a pivotal aspect of patent law, focusing on the level of inventiveness required for a patent to be granted. It operates under the premise that if an invention is obvious for someone with skills in the relevant field also known as the ‘Person Skilled in the Art’…
-
Continue reading →: Upholding Natural Justice: Delhi High Court’s Emphasis on Procedural Fairness in Deciding Patent Eligibility
In two recent judgements, namely Man Truck Bus Se vs. Assistant Controller of PatentsDesigns [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2022] and Kao Corporation vs. The Controller of Patents & Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 1/2024, I.A. 128/2024], the Delhi High Court underscored the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice while adjudicating patent applications. Both…
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 