Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Image accompanying blogpost on "Cancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over Eltrombopag"

Cancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over Eltrombopag

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court overturned an injunction against Natco, allowing them to produce a generic version of Novartis’s cancer drug. The Court held that Novartis’s patent on a specific salt form of the drug (ELT-O) lacked novelty due to its coverage in an earlier patent (IN’176). Continue Reading Cancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over Eltrombopag

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Sufficiency of Disclosure - Ericsson vs Lava - Part X"

Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X

This post dissects the Sufficiency of Disclosure aspect in the Ericsson Vs. Lava case, scrutinizing the court’s assessment of Ericsson’s patents’ validity under Sections 64(1)(h) and 64(1)(i) of the Patents Act. Drawing from legal precedents and patent law, the analysis highlights how the court deemed Ericsson’s patents to meet the requirements, ultimately dismissing Lava’s grounds for revocation. Continue Reading Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds"

Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds

The Delhi High Court recently ruled in favor of Calm Water Therapeutics LLC, highlighting the importance of transparent reasoning in patent refusal decisions. The Court’s observations underscored flaws in the Controller’s assessment, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive reasoning behind such refusals. Continue Reading Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) - Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX"

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX

This post covers the intricate legal analysis of Ericsson’s patents essential for 3G and EDGE standards, dissecting novelty and inventive step aspects. Delve into the court’s scrutiny of prior art arguments and its decision on each patent’s validity. Continue Reading Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) - Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII"

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII

This analysis examines the novelty and inventive step of the first five patents (IN 203034, IN 203036, IN 234157, IN 203686, IN 213723) in the Ericsson vs. Lava patent case. Part A focuses on patents related to Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) speech codec technology (IN 203034, IN 203036, IN 234157). Continue Reading Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent Term Travel : The 20 year term from the Date of Filing is constitutionally valid"

The 20-Year Patent Term from the Date of Filing is Constitutionally Valid

The Calcutta High Court scrutinized the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act. The Petitoner argued for recalculating patent term from the date of grant, contending the current provision as arbitrary. However, the Court upheld the existing framework, emphasizing legislative discretion and international compliance. Continue Reading The 20-Year Patent Term from the Date of Filing is Constitutionally Valid

Read more

Image accompanying a blogpost on "A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson's Eight Patents - Ericsson vs. Lava - Part VII"

A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

This post analyzes an Indian court case between Ericsson and Lava focusing on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. This section prohibits patents on mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs, and algorithms. The court evaluated the patentability of eight patents related to mobile communication technologies under Section 3(k). Continue Reading A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970."

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court overturned the Indian Patent Office’s decision to reject Imclone’s patent application for a monoclonal antibody to treat metastatic bone cancer. The Court disagreed with the Patent Office’s view that the antibody was merely “discovered in nature” and not an invention. Continue Reading Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI"

Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI

The Delhi High Court dismissed Lava’s attempt to revoke Ericsson’s patents based on alleged misrepresentation. The Court highlighted the high burden of proof needed and found Lava to have failed to demonstrate intentional deceit by Ericsson. Continue Reading Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI

Read more