-
Continue reading →: Unreasoned DAE Order Cannot Sustain Patent Refusal Under Section 4, Rules Bombay High Court
By Jigyasa Pareek Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970, bars from patentability those inventions that relate to atomic energy falling within Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The latter defines “atomic energy” as the energy released from atomic nuclei as a result of any process such as…
-
Continue reading →: Unreasoned Order and Introduction of New Grounds Lead to Remand in Navya Network
In the case of Navya Network Inc. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [2026:BHC-OS:9481] the appellant challenged the refusal of its patent application number 2068/MUMNP/2014, entitled “Medical Research Retrieval Engine”. The subject invention related to a system and method for retrieving medical research documents using predefined relational expressions mapped…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Reaffirms Stringent Standard for Synergy Under Section 3(e) and Permits Additional Prior Art at Appellate Stage
In Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 19/2023], the Delhi High Court was called upon to examine the refusal of patent application number 2228/DEL/2011, entitled ‘Herbicidal Composition for Field Crops’, directed to a herbicidal composition comprising halosulfuron-methyl and metribuzin, claimed to exhibit a synergistic…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Division Bench Upholds Refusal of Interim Injunction in Novo Nordisk, Flags Futility of Late-Stage IP Appeals
By Jigyasa Pareek In Novo Nordisk A/S vs Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. [FAO(OS)(COMM) 204/2025], the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of interim injunction against alleged patent infringement of IN’697 covering Semaglutide. Significantly, the Bench also cautioned against the growing tendency to prefer appeals against interim…
-
Continue reading →: No Liability Without Role: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits of Impleadment in Patent Infringement Suits
By Jigyasa Pareek In ITW GSE APS & Anr. vs Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [CS(COMM) 628/2023], the Delhi High Court dealt with an application filed by Defendant no. 3 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking deletion from the patent infringement suit. The Plaintiffs had alleged…
-
Continue reading →: A Landmark Ruling on GUI Designs: Calcutta High Court Aligns India with Global Practice
By Jigyasa Pareek The protection of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) under design law has, globally, moved towards broad recognition, with a majority of jurisdictions acknowledging GUIs as registrable subject matter. Studies by WIPO and the International Chamber of Commerce indicate that over 90% of jurisdictions extend design protection to GUIs,…
-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court Upholds Rejection of Flipkart’s Post-Grant Opposition Against Voicemonk Patent
In the case of Flipkart Internet Private Ltd vs The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs [CMA(PT) No. 9 of 2024] the Madras High Court upheld the dismissal of the post-grant opposition filed by Flipkart against patent number 312437, granted in favour of Voicemonk for the invention entitled “Systems and…
-
Continue reading →: Division Bench Settles Law: Revocation Is Maintainable Even After Expiry and Parallel Invalidity Plea
By Jigyasa Pareek Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, states that a patent may be revoked on a petition of any person interested or of the Central Government, or on a counter-claim in an infringement suit. Section 107, in turn, allows invalidity to be raised as a defence in…
-
Continue reading →: Orissa High Court Takes a Liberal View on Restoration of Lapsed Patent
The Orissa High Court in M/s. Green Energy Resources, Sambalpur vs Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 19128 of 2024] considered whether a patentee can be permitted to seek restoration of a lapsed patent after expiry of the statutory restoration period, where the lapse occurred due to the negligence…
-
Continue reading →: Does Defending Unity Undermines Later Claim of Intention to file a Divisional Application?
By Jigyasa Pareek Patent disputes typically arise from refusals. In Yangtze Memory Technologie Co. Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(C)-IPD 10/2025], however, the Delhi High Court was faced with an unusual situation, an applicant challenging the grant of its own patent on the ground that the application was…
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 