-
Continue reading →: Public Documents with Restricted Access Are Not “Publications” under Rule 62(4): Madras HC
In Hi Tech Chemicals Limited vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs [C.M.A.(PT) No. 43 of 2023], the Madras High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the Appellant’s post-grant opposition, holding that the Controller had failed to record findings on material grounds raised in the opposition. At the outset,…
-
Continue reading →: Madras High Court Sets Aside Patent Refusal Over Unexamined Priority Date Objection
Over the past years, the Courts have consistently stressed that the Controller of patents must engage with every material contention raised by an applicant (and opponent, where applicable) and must record a speaking order that reflects application of mind, respond to arguments advanced, and demonstrates how each issue has been…
-
Continue reading →: Recalibrating Section 3(k): Madras High Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Technical” in CRI Patentability
By Jigyasa Pareek In a recent decision of the Madras High Court in AB Initio Technology LLC vs Controller of Patents & Designs [(T)CMA(PT) No.58 of 2023], the Court took a scalpel to the long-standing imprecision surrounding Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which excludes from patentability “a mathematical…
-
Continue reading →: Decoding the Novo Nordisk Ruling: Genus vs Species, Form 27 Admissions, and the “Clear the Way” Doctrine
By Jigyasa Pareek The Delhi High Court, on December 2, 2025, decided the interim injunction application in Novo Nordisk AS vs Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited & Anr. [CS(COMM) 565/2025] where Nordisk alleged infringement of their patent number 262697 (IN’697), entitled “Acylated GLP-1 Analogs Comprising Non-Proteogenic Amino Acid Residue”. The suit…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Reiterates that Composition Claims Cannot Be Recast as Treatment Claims Without Clear Justification
The Delhi High Court’s recent decision in Medilabo RFP Inc. vs Controller of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2024] is an important reaffirmation of the principle that the Patent Office must carefully distinguish between a patentable composition and a non-patentable method of treatment under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The appeal concerned…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Reminds that Inventive Step Cannot Be Assessed Superficially
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Alcon Inc. vs Controller of Patents [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 15/2024] once again underscores an increasingly consistent judicial view that inventive step analysis under Section 2(1)(ja) cannot be a superficial mechanical exercise. It requires a disciplined, structured methodology, firmly anchored in Hoffmann-La Roche [2015 SCC OnLine Del…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Post-Grant Revocation for Non-Application of Mind
In Bayer Cropscience Aktiengesellschaft vs The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 80/2024], the Delhi High Court reiterated the judiciary’s intolerance for non-speaking and copy-paste orders in patent prosecution. The Court set aside the Post-Grant Opposition (PGO) order that revoked Bayer’s patent IN 369450, holding that the…
-
Continue reading →: DPIIT Notifies Draft Rules Introducing Code of Conduct for Patent Agents
By Jigyasa Pareek The absence of a codified ethical framework for patent agents in India has been a long-standing anomaly. Unlike professions such as Advocates and Chartered Accountants that are governed by detailed statutory codes delineating permissible conduct and prescribing consequences for professional lapses, patent agents have operated without any…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi High Court on Section 59 and Section 3(k): Kroll Information Assurance LLC vs Controller of Patents
In the case of Kroll Information Assurance LLC vs Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Ors. [C.A. (COMM. IPD-PAT) 439/2022], the Delhi High Court examined two crucial issues in patent law: the permissibility of amendments under Section 59 and the scope of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act,…
-
Continue reading →: Even a 4% Improvement Counts: Calcutta High Court Recognises Small Percentage Gains as Synergistic Effect
In the case of UPL Ltd. vs Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks [IPDPTA/2/2025], the Calcutta High Court underscored that even a marginal numerical improvement in efficacy can constitute enhancement in the context of patentability. The decision reiterates that patent examination cannot be reduced to a mechanical or statistical exercise;…
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 