-
Continue reading →: Bombay High Court Reiterates the Requirement of Reasoned Patent Refusal Orders
In Medipack Global Ventures Private Limited vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [COMMP(L) 19258 of 2024], the Bombay High Court set aside a patent refusal order on the ground that it was a non-speaking order passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The decision assumes significance for its…
-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court Grants Injunction Against Online Disparagement of Patented Product
In Elgi Ultra Private Limited vs Harish Joshi [C.S. (Comm Div.) No. 173 of 2025], the Madras High Court granted an ex parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from making derogatory and defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff’s patented product and awarded costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to the Plaintiff, while…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Directs Xiaomi to Deposit ₹272 Crores: Reaffirms Pro Tem Security Jurisprudence in Indian SEP Litigation
By Jigyasa Pareek In a significant development for India’s evolving Standard Essential Patent (SEP) jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court in Malikie Innovations Ltd. & Anr. vs Xiaomi Corporation & Ors. [CS(COMM) 734/2025] directed Xiaomi to deposit approximately ₹272 crores (USD 28.7 million) as pro tem security, or alternatively furnish an…
-
Continue reading →: Defining “Efficacy” Beyond Pharmaceuticals: Delhi High Court’s Progressive Interpretation of Section 3(d) in Syngenta v. Controller
By Jigyasa Pareek Section 3(d) of the Patents Act bars from patentability those inventions that are mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Permits Post-Facto Efficacy Evidence in Daewoong vs Controller
In the case of Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Controller General of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 23/2022], the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of patent application number 201817048074, entitled “Method of Producing Diphenylmethane Derivative” and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of additional efficacy data filed…
-
Continue reading →: Technical Objection Under Section 10(4)(c) Must Be Clearly Communicated at the Examination Stage, Says Delhi High Court
In Wirtgen GMBH vs Controller General of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022], the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of patent application number 2874/DEL/2010, entitled “Bit Holder and Base Part for Receiving a Bit Holder”, holding that the impugned order suffered from both procedural and analytical infirmities. The judgment is significant…
-
Continue reading →: “Glaring Error” in Ignoring Amended Claims: Delhi High Court Reaffirms the Live Claims Principle
In President and Fellows of Harvard College vs Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022], the Delhi High Court addressed a recurring procedural infirmity in patent prosecution: the failure of the Controller to consider amended claims prior to refusing an application. The Court set aside the impugned order…
-
Continue reading →: Overlooking Economic Significance and Rendering Conclusory Obviousness Findings Leads to Remand in Novozymes
The Madras High Court, in the case of Novozymes A/s vs The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs [CMA(PT) No. 19 of 2025], set aside the order of the Controller refusing Novozymes’s patent application. Novozymes’s patent application number 202047008467, entitled “Ejector Equipped Fermenter”, relates to fermenters for fermenting micro-organisms for…
-
Continue reading →: Incorrect Legal Advice and E-Filing Defects: Delhi HC Clarifies Prejudice Test While Condoning Delay
In Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. vs Dura‑Line India Pvt. Ltd. [RFA(OS)(COMM) 4/2026], the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with two applications filed by the Appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the subject appeal against…
-
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…
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.
