BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court

Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court clarifies the nature of product by process patent claims in the ferric carboxymaltose dispute between Vifor International and MSN Labs. Continue Reading Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court
February 8, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 348Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Principles for filing Divisional Patent Applications in India

Principles for filing Divisional Patent Applications in India

After the establishment of the IP Division, the Delhi High Court has been clarifying different aspects of patent law through its lucid and well-written judgments. In a case decided on 12th July 2022, the Court has clarified and succinctly put together principles pertaining to the filing of divisional patent applications. While rejecting the validity of a divisional application  including product claims pertaining to DPP IV inhibitors because the parent application included only use and process claims, the Court stated as…
August 11, 2022 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1901Views 0Like
Share

Read more

CLAIM

Patent Claim Drafting – Preamble

This post was first published on July 16, 2014.   It would have been very well drummed into a patent professional, Mr. X, who has just started drafting a patent specification that “claims form the heart of a patent application,” or the “name of the game is claim,” and so on. Very few might agree with me if Mr. X has been told to carefully consider the words and/or features and/or the language used in the preamble, as…
August 6, 2019 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1746Views 0Like
Share

Read more

fork in thr road

Crossing the Rubicon: A Fork in the Road – Go Right or Left?

This post was first published on 24th July, 2014.   Case Analysis of Dr. Aloys Wobben and another vs. Yogesh Mehra and others. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6718 OF 2013 Facts: Dr. Aloys Wobben (Appellant) owns approximately 2,700 patents in more than 60 countries of which 100 patents are in India in the field of wind turbine generators and wind energy converters. Appellant was carrying out the manufacturing process in India through a joint venture partnership with the Yogesh Mehra and Ajay Mehra (Enercon India Limited)…
July 24, 2019 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1245Views 0Like
Share

Read more

PATENT INVALIDATION REVOCATION x

A Conduit for INVALID PATENTS – Section 13(1)(b)

First Publication Date: 8th December 2010.   Section 13 of the Indian Patent Act requires the Examiner, to whom an application for a patent is referred to, to search for previous publications which anticipate the invention claimed in the referred patent application. Section 13 recites “Search for anticipation by previous publication and by prior claim (1) The examiner to whom an application for a patent is referred under section 12 shall make investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether the invention so far as claimed…
December 20, 2018 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1575Views 0Like
Share

Read more

telephone

Telephone – Inventions that Revolutionized the World

  First Publication Date: 27th November 2010 The most common devices used for transmitting the voice signal over a greater distance are pipes and other physical mechanical media. All of us as a child must have used this form for communication. Another device used for centuries for voice communication is lover’s phone or tin can telephone. The classic example is the children's toy made by connecting the bottoms of two paper cups, metal cans, or plastic bottles with string. But the invention…
December 14, 2018 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1168Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Genetic Patentability x

The Gene Returns to its Body

This post was first published on April 1, 2010.   I’m still in denial of the summary judgment ruling provided by Judge Robert W. Sweet of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO on March 29th 2010. Looks like all that I read, understood and was convinced that gene patents demands a revisit. The 156 pages summary judgment that was issued on this Monday has for sure taken me by surprise.…
November 27, 2018 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 664Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Patent Claims x

Swiss Claims are History!

  This post was first published on February 24, 2010.   If the 19th February decision (G02/08) from the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) at the EPO is to be simplistically interpreted, “Swiss” Type claims are indeed history. As most of our readers must be aware of the nature of a “Swiss” type of claim language. A “Swiss” type claim is essentially used to cover the so called Second, Third and Subsequent uses/medical indications of a known substance or composition. Taking our readers a…
November 27, 2018 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1281Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Patent Claims x

Something More About Swiss Type Claims

This post was first published on February 25, 2010.   On reading Siddharth’s post on the 19th February decision (G02/08) from the Enlarged Board of Appeal regarding the Swiss type claims, I got motivated to write something about the Swiss type claims and the reason for its birth and death. Like in India, Method of Treatment and Method of diagnosis (in vivo) has always been non patentable subject matter in Europe (Article 52(4)). Furthermore, before the concept of Absolute Novelty was introduced by…
November 27, 2018 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 700Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Patent

Claiming with a Purpose, with the Blessings of the Inventor

This post was first published on March 1, 2010.   Claims draw the boundary to the invention that is being claimed. The boundary that is being drawn must be carefully done in order to ensure that the claims serve their purpose. The point here is that every claim must have a specific purpose and must be targeted to a potentially infringing product or process, or be targeted to protect a specific implementation (in case of defensive approach). In order for the practitioner…
November 27, 2018 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 526Views 0Like
Share

Read more