In Base SE v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that scientific and technical inventions addressing agricultural problems are not excluded under Section 3(h). It also clarified that partial grant of patent claims is not permitted under Indian patent law.
Read more about Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 3(h) in Patent Law: Base SE v. Controller of PatentsAuthor: Anjali Santhosh
Anjali Santhosh is an experienced Patent Attorney with BananaIP Counsels, a reputed IP firm. She serves as a contributor to Intellepedia, where she shares insights on Patent Law and evolving innovation trends.
The views expressed in her articles and posts on Intellepedia are personal and do not represent those of BananaIP Counsels or its members.
Non-Disclosure of Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Natural Justice, Rules Delhi High Court
In Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court emphasized procedural fairness and ruled that the non-disclosure of prior art in a hearing notice constitutes a breach of natural justice. The Court remanded the case for fresh evaluation.
Read more about Non-Disclosure of Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Natural Justice, Rules Delhi High CourtDelhi High Court Allows Claim Amendment During Appeal in Albemarle Patent Case
The Delhi High Court allowed Albemarle Corporation to amend claims at the appellate stage, and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for re-examination.
Read more about Delhi High Court Allows Claim Amendment During Appeal in Albemarle Patent CaseNot Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal Formulation
The Calcutta High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application filed by UPL Ltd., involving innovative fungicidal combinations. The Court found that the rejection order issued by the Controller lacked detailed reasoning and had procedural deficiencies, particularly concerning inventive step and treatment of experimental data.
Read more about Not Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal FormulationPatent Rejection for Vehicle Monitoring System reversed by Court
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TVS Motor Company against the rejection of its patent application pertaining to a Vehicle Monitoring System. The Court observed that the Controller had not adequately examined the validity of the cited prior art and had failed to provide a reasoned analysis with respect to the inventive step. Consequently, the matter was remanded to a different Controller for fresh consideration.
Read more about Patent Rejection for Vehicle Monitoring System reversed by Court