-
Continue reading →: Delhi HC Rejects Zydus’s Writ Petition, Clarifies Scope of Pre-Grant Opposition
By Jigyasa Pareek In Zydus Healthcare Ltd. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. [W.P.(C)-IPD 23/2023], the Delhi High Court examined a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the grant of a patent after rejection of a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the…
-
Continue reading →: Procedural Fairness in Patent Examination: Delhi HC on Inventive Step and Section 3(d)
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Osaka University vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 390/2022], set aside the order passed by the Controller in application number 3495/DELNP/2012, entitled ‘Bridged Artificial Nucleoside and Nucleotide’. The subject application was refused by the Controller on the grounds of lack…
-
Continue reading →: Claims, Clarity, and Contradiction: Delhi High Court on Sections 10(4), 10(5) and Inventive Step
In Resham Priyadarshini vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 9/2025] the Delhi High Court addressed three issues: (i) refusals on the grounds of insufficiency and lack of clarity under Sections 10(4)(c) and 10(5) of the Patents Act, 1970; (ii) the inconsistency of holding claims to be both unclear…
-
Continue reading →: Can an Employment Agreement Constitute Valid Proof of Right? Delhi HC Says Yes
Under Section 7(2) of Indian Patents Act, “proof of right” means showing how the person who has filed the patent application legally obtained the right to do so, when that person is not the true and first inventor. Indian patent law proceeds on the foundational principle that the right to…
-
Continue reading →: Invoking Article 226, Madras High Court Allows Demonstration of Solar Power Device Before Patent Office
In the case of Kannan Gopalakrishnan vs Controller of Patents & Anr. [Writ Petition (IPD) No.36 of 2025], the Madras High Court presents an instructive example of how constitutional equity may operate at the margins of patentability, without unsettling exclusions embedded in the Patents Act, 1970. The writ petition sought…
-
Continue reading →: Pre-Grant Opposition as an Independent Filter: Bombay High Court’s Take on Dual-Track Patent Examination
Under India’s patent regime, once a patent application is published, it is routinely examined by the Patent Office for compliance with statutory requirements such as novelty and inventive step, culminating in a decision under Sections 14 and 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. Independently, a third party may file a…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi HC Distinguishes Technical Innovation from Visual Design in Patent and Design Enforcement
The decision of the Delhi High Court in Dura‑Line India Pvt. Ltd. vs Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. [CS(COMM) 245/2017] addressed the aspects of patent and design enforcement including patent validity and infringement under the Patents Act, 1970 and the Designs Act, 2000. The dispute concerned (i) patent number 199722, entitled…
-
Continue reading →: Distinguishing Purpose from Technical Execution: Madras High Court’s Approach under Section 3(k)
In Trans Union LLC vs The Controller General of Patents and Designs [(T)CMA(PT) No.159 of 2023], the Madras High Court examined the refusal of patent application number 4268/CHE/2012, entitled “System and Method for Matching of Database Records Based on Similarities to Search Queries”. The application was refused on the sole…
-
Continue reading →: Prior Species, Later Genus: Delhi High Court Declines Interim Injunction in FMC vs Natco
The Delhi High Court, in the case of FMC Corporation & Ors. vs Natco Pharma Limited [CS(COMM) 607/2024], decided an interim injunction application filed by FMC seeking to restrain the alleged infringement of its patented Compound of Formula 3, as claimed in Claim 12 of patent number 298645 (IN’645), entitled…
-
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,…
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.
