Bar_graph

Indian Patent Statistics – October 2014

The Indian Patent Office granted a total of 596 patents and published 3721 patent applications in the month of October, 2014.

GM Global Technologies topped the Grantee list with 29 patents to their name. With a total of 16 patents, Qualcomm Incorporated followed GM Global at a close second. LG Electronics Inc. and Siemens Aktiengesellschaft also made it to the Grantee list.

As the applicant for 62 patent applications, Robert Bosch GMBH topped the Patent Applicant list. Robert Bosch GMBH was followed closely by Kabushiki Kaisha Yaskawa Denki and Qualcomm Incorporated with 41 applications. Sony Corporation secured the third place with a total of 39 applications.

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
3466829_bfdee8c2

DoT drops controversial clause from proposed IP policy; Likely to benefit domestic handset dealers

In a move which is set to benefit domestic handset dealers, the Department of Telecom (DoT) has removed a controversial clause from the proposed Intellectual Property policy, thereby giving better negotiation powers to local telecommunication companies like Micromax and Karbonn while dealing with the patent owners.

The proposed clause had stated that patent seekers in the telecom technology sector would have to enter into a licensing fee payment contract with the essential patents owners within 6-12 months and in case the discussions did not work out, the patent owner could opt for the legal route.

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
universityy-672x372

University of Cincinnati launches Integrated Tech Transfer Model

The Office of Entrepreneurial Affairs and Technology Commercialization at the University of Cincinnati (UC) has been replaced by a “Commercialization Accelerator Model” after receiving a US$ 1 Million funding renewal boost from Ohio’s Third Frontier Commission earlier this month. It is twice the amount the accelerator received from the Third Frontier at the time of its inception in 2012.

Following the funding, the accelerator under a new integrated model, will take care of everything associated with the commercialization of UC innovations, including technology transfer, patent management and commercialization activities. UC’s Technology Accelerator was created with an intention of plugging in gaps between the early stage university innovations and the expectations of the investors. The accelerator serves as a propeller for innovation and commercialization activity at UC, putting focus on recognizing promising technologies and promoting those innovations and ideas that attract funds from outside investors.

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
800px-IISc_convo_hall1

Indian Institute of Science set to translate Innovation to Entrepreneurship

One of the leading research institutes, the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) is planning to promote start-ups. It is filtering through its innovations and Intellectual Property collected since its inception 105 years ago and is encouraging its students and faculty to come up with more entrepreneurial ideas.

IISc Director, Anurag Kumar commented, “the emphasis on science research will not change, but we are interested in making it more impactful”. IISc’s contribution towards the scientific and technological advancement of the country has been noteworthy. It has produced a lot of exceptional intellectuals to run industries, business houses and institutions. IISc runs a lot of translational programs which intend to take research forward and prepare it for implementation in the real world.

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Untitled-672x372

Battling Bitcoin with Patents

Here is the next post in the series of Student Blog Contest. This post is authored by Amrita Vasudevan.

Satoshi Nakamoto may sound like a name of a person to most and may well be, but more accurately it is the name of a phenomenon (Nakamoto has never revealed himself to the public and may even be an organisation)! He is the one behind revolutionary Crypto-currency, Bitcoin. Nakamoto, who spent more than a year writing the software, was motivated to create a currency that was impervious to unpredictable monetary policies and the caprices of bankers and politicians whose follies, he believed, led to the recent financial crisis.

Nakamoto designed the software in such a way as to ensure that only twenty-one million Bitcoins are released into the world over the next twenty years [1], making sure that this digital currency is deflatory. Initially valued at less than a penny, Bitcoin has rapidly picked up pace with greater acceptability and at the end of 2014, one Bitcoin is worth US$ 371.450 USD or INR 22901.79729.[2]

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Sinapse-672x372

Weekly Warm up with Sinapse!

CANE FOUNDATION – INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR, OF & BY THE DISABLED

… CANE FOUNDATION, founded in November, 2014, is a charitable trust, founded to combat disability and the myths that go with it, in all its forms. It is now accepting applications for the protection of ideas, inventions and/or creations for, of and/or by the disabled. For more details vist: www.canefoundation.org.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES – INGENIO’S MESSAGE

… SiNApSE observed the International Day of persons with disabilities with wise Ingenio enlightening us on the importance of this day.

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Kalyan

India, Start Ups, Funding and Intellectual Property

Funding activities during the last quarter, especially when it comes to start ups, was great! Apart from the US$ 1 Billion Fundraising by FlipKart, India saw several start ups being funded at various levels. A Report indicates 93 deals and a total funding of INR 97,738 Million. With the FlipKart deal, e-commerce businesses lead the pack in percentage of start ups funded based on sector.

With respect to start up activities in the country, a 2014 NASSCOM Report rated India as the fastest growing start up ecosystem and the third largest in the world. This report estimates that India has around 3,100 start ups, and that 800 of them are being set up every year. By 2020, it estimates that India’s start up size will be around 11, 500.

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
22linga

Rajini’s Lingaa clears legal hurdles; All set for blockbuster release on his birthday!

Lingaa, the most recent film starring Rajinikanth, was accused of plagiarism of aspiring film-maker K R Ravi Rathinam’s yet-to-be-released Tamil film, “Mullai Vaanam 999”. Consequently, Ravi Rathinam filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. The petitioner maintained that his film, though unreleased, has a story based on the construction of the Mullaperiyar dam by a British Engineer John Pennycuick and the story was published on YouTube. This caused severe outrage among the Defendants especially film director, K S Ravi Kumar, who denied the allegation stating that it wasn’t possible to infringe an unpublished copyrighted work, while also alleging that was this done merely to harass them (Defendants), asserting that “no one can claim right over the theme of a hero constructing a dam and protecting it from anti-social elements”.

Ravi Kumar’s counter-affidavit stated that though the script of the movie was written by S Ponkumaran (registered as ‘King Khan’ under South Indian Film Writers’ Association) the screenplay was written by himself. In addition, Superstar Rajinikanth filed another counter-affidavit, which in part, contradicted Ravi Kumar’s version where it claimed that both the script and screenplay were written by S Ponkumaran. He referred to “custom and practice” of the film industry whereby a minimum of 13 continuous shots are required to prove Copyright Infringement. He even questioned his addition to the list of Respondents by being called a distributor of the movie. He told The Hindu that, “…the name, fame and repute enjoyed by me worldwide have been tarnished as if the film ‘Lingaa’ is a product of a copy-cat. I have been roped into unnecessary controversy. I hereby reserve my right to proceed against the petitioner for damages”.

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Leap

A Leap: The TSM Test and Non-obviousness

TSM test is the Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation test. It simply means, when analysing the obviousness of an invention while comparing it with prior art, these are the three questions that have to be asked:

  • Is the prior art quoted instrumental in teaching the reader the method of producing the invention?
  • Does the prior art or any of its contents suggest any method of producing the invention in question?
  • Does the prior art talk about problems related to a particular technology motivating an invention in a particular manner?

It must be well understood by now that to receive a patent over an invention there has to be leap. A sufficient “leap” beyond what is already known that can be demonstrated as objectively as possible. As laid down in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850), what is looked for is the evidence of “more ingenuity and skill… than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business.”

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
trilogy

Non-obviousness and the Trilogy

The Supreme Court’s non-obviousness precedent commenced with Graham v. John Deere Co.and its companion cases, Calmar v. Cook Chemical and United States v. Adams, collectively referred to in patent circles as the Trilogy. This trilogy represents the Supreme Court’s first interpretation of the statutory non-obvious requirement. The principal issue in the trilogy was establishing the level of ingenuity necessary to satisfy the Section 103 non-obvious requirement that had been added to the Patent Act in 1952.

The decision in Calmar offered a detailed description of prior art and the differences between the claims at issue and the prior art. The opinion, however, provided no discussion of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the other hand, Adams contained some analysis relevant to the person of ordinary skill, but remains deficient in defining the level of ingenuity necessary to satisfy the non-obvious requirement.

Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather