-
Continue reading →: Grounds Not Pressed Are Grounds Lost
By Jigyasa Pareek In litigation, there is often a marked difference between what is pleaded and what is actually argued. A written statement in a patent infringement suit may teem with objections under Sections 64 and 107 of the Patents Act, 1970, but it is the arguments actually advanced, and…
-
Continue reading →: Patent Office Cannot Collapse Examination and Opposition Into One: Calcutta HC
The scheme of the Patents Act, 1970 draws a procedural distinction between the examination of a patent application and the pre-grant opposition mechanism. The examination process under Sections 12-15 and the pre-grant opposition mechanism under Section 25(1) operate as parallel yet independent statutory stages. While a pre-grant opposition aids the…
-
Continue reading →: Non-Submission of NBA Approval Is Not a ‘Failure’ When Approval Is Awaited Beyond Applicant’s Control, Says Delhi High Court
Under the Patents Act, 1970, where invention uses biological material from India or the source and/or the origin of the biological material is from India as per disclosure in the specification, the applicant is required to disclose the source and geographical origin and obtain approval from the National Biodiversity Authority…
-
Continue reading →: Doctrine of Equivalents and Claim Construction in Focus as Delhi HC Division Bench Rejects Canva’s Appeal in RxPrism Patent Dispute
In the case of Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. vs RxPrism Health Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [FAO(OS)(COMM) 211/2023], the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench considered an appeal against an interim injunction granted by the Single Judge in CS (COMM) 573 of 2021. The injunction restrained Canva from offering its…
-
Continue reading →: No New Case at the Hearing Stage: Calcutta High Court in Topotarget
In the case of Topotarget UK Limited vs The Controller General of Patents and Ors. [IPDPTA/50/2023], the Calcutta High Court underscored the need for procedural fairness and reasoned adjudication in patent prosecution. Setting aside the impugned refusal, the Court made the following observations: The Examiner’s role is limited to examining…
-
Continue reading →: Proposed Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000
On January 23, 2026, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released a Concept Note proposing wide-ranging amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. The proposals respond to rapid changes in technology, the growing importance of design-led industries, and India’s ambition to align its design regime with global…
-
Continue reading →: Calcutta High Court on Teaching Away, Mosaicing, and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act
In OCV Intellectual Capital LLC vs The Controller General of Patents, Designs And Trademarks [IPDPTA/34/2022], the Calcutta High Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, set aside the refusal of patent application number 1733/KOLNP/2008, entitled “Composition for High Performance Glass, High Performance Glass Fiber and…
-
Continue reading →: Appeals from Single Judge Orders in Patent Matters: The Interplay Between Section 117A of the Patents Act and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act
With the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) pursuant to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, appeals from specified orders of the Controller of Patents now lie directly to the High Courts under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. This has raised an important question: does an intra‑court…
-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court on Maintainability of Stand-Alone Revocation Petition Following a Specific Plea for Revocation in an Infringement Suit
In Versuni Holding B.V. vs Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. [(PT) A No. 3 of 2024 & OP(PT) No. 1 of 2024], he Madras High Court was called upon to decide whether a defendant, having filed a written statement with a specific plea seeking revocation of a patent in an infringement…
-
Continue reading →: Can a Mixing Sequence Be Inventive? Delhi High Court Says the Patent Office Must Explain Why Not
In Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk GmbH vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 423/2022], the Delhi High Court revisited the standards governing inventive step and non-patentability objections in process claims relating to phytopharmaceuticals. The appeal arose from the refusal of patent application number 1285/DEL/2009, entitled “Method for the production of a…
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.
