-
Continue reading →: Ignoring Post-Hearing Claim Amendments Invalidates Patent Refusal
By Jigyasa Pareek In PPC Broadband Inc. vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 67/2024], the Delhi High Court set aside a patent application refusal order, reiterating two foundational tenets of Indian patent jurisprudence: Controllers must adjudicate the actual claim set pending on record, the objection on inventive…
-
Continue reading →: Section 10(4) objection cannot, by itself, conclude patent examination, Says Bombay High Court
By Jigyasa Pareek In a significant decision clarifying the procedural obligations of the Patent Office, the Bombay High Court has held that a patent application cannot be rejected solely on procedural or disclosure objections under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970, without an independent assessment of core patentability requirements…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Holds Passing Off Claim May Survive Even Where Design Infringement Fails
By Jigyasa Pareek The Delhi High Court’s decision in Novamax Industries LLP vs Prem Appliances & Anr. [CS(COMM) 177/2021] examines the relationship between statutory design infringement and the common law remedy of passing off in the context of a composite design suit. While the Court summarily dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court on Genus-Species Patents, Coverage vs. Disclosure, and Section 3(d)
By Jigyasa Pareek The Delhi High Court, in Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. vs Controller of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2023], examined the patentability of pharmaceutical species claims arising from an earlier genus disclosure. The Court considered whether specific deuterated compounds claimed in the application were novel over the applicant’s own earlier patent publications,…
-
Continue reading →: Calcutta High Court Upholds Refusal for Insufficient Disclosure and Non-Compliance with Disclosure Obligations Relating to Biological Material
By Jigyasa Pareek The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Fraunhofer Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschunge vs The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Anr. [IPDPTA/11/2024] reiterates that the grant of a patent is conditioned upon a complete, clear and enabling disclosure of the invention. Dismissing the…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Holds that Strict Compliance with the Roche Five-Step Test Is Not Mandatory and Affirms LPA Maintainability in Patent Appeals
By Jigyasa Pareek In Sulzer Mixpac AG vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [LPA 545/2024, decided on July 1, 2026], the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the Single Judge’s decision to uphold the rejection of patent application number 1329/DEL/2012, entitled “Static…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court on Inventive Step and Reasoned Orders: The Nippon Signal Co. Ltd. vs Assistant Controller
The Delhi High Court’s decision in The Nippon Signal Co., Ltd. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024] is an important addition to Indian patent jurisprudence on inventive step and the quality of reasoning required in Controller’s orders. The Court set aside the refusal of patent application number…
-
Continue reading →: Patents, Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity: Analysing the Patent–Biodiversity Interface in Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Controller
By Dr. Neeti Wilson, Partner Introduction The interface between intellectual property protection, traditional knowledge and biodiversity regulation continues to shape the development of Indian patent jurisprudence. While the Patents Act, 1970, seeks to incentivise innovation through the grant of exclusive rights, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, seeks to regulate access…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Holds Biomarker-Based Patient Selection Methods Patent-Ineligible Under Section 3(i)
By Jigyasa Pareek The Delhi High Court’s decision in Geron Corporation vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 244/2022] represents another important development in the growing body of jurisprudence on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. Building upon the principles laid down in Chinese University of Hong…
-
Continue reading →: Detection by Claim, Diagnosis by Specification? Delhi High Court Says Section 3(i) Still Applies
By Jigyasa Pareek In Hirotsu Bio Science Inc. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 45/2023], the Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of patent application number 201617022947, entitled “Cancer Detection Method Using Sense of Smell of Nematode”, holding that an in vitro cancer detection process employing the olfactory…
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.
