Gaurav Mishra | Intellepedia

Why Are Patents Expensive? A guide to patent costs and value

Chalk drawing of a Pac-Man-like shape labeled "Patent" appearing to eat three dollar signs, symbolising the high costs associated with patents.

This post breaks down why patents are expensive, detailing costs across various stages, from drafting to international filings. It also explains how thoughtful investment in patent services ensures stronger protection and long-term value for innovators and businesses.

Akebia’s patent for Anemia therapy gets fresh blood from Court

Illustration featuring the headline “Court infuses fresh blood into Patent for Anemia Therapy” alongside an image of a blood bag with a red tube.

In a recent case the Madras High Court upheld Akebia Therapeutics’ appeal on its anaemia treatment patent, interpreting Section 59 to allow claim amendments from treatment methods to compositions, as long as they’re disclosed in the original application. The case underscores the significance of well-documented specifications in pharmaceutical patents.

Patent Claim Amendments – Court’s observation of amendments to systems, methods and use claims

Illustration of a peaceful, smiling monk in orange robes sitting cross-legged with eyes closed, surrounded by a yellow halo, under the curved text "It’s all about accepting the change" on a peach background.

The Calcutta High Court remanded a patent application back to the Controller of Patents, citing infrimities in evaluating claim amendments. The Court stressed that mere change in claim types—method to system—without analyzing technical substance cannot justify rejection under Section 59 of the Indian Patents Act.

What Have You Been Smoking? Personal bias has no place in Tobacco patent evaluation

A cigarette crossed out with a red prohibition sign, flanked by comic-style text bubbles reading "WHAT?" on the left and "WHY!" on the right, against a blue background

The Calcutta High Court has criticised the arbitrary rejection of a tobacco syrup patent by the Indian patent office, urging objective analysis over personal bias. It held that Section 3(b) must not be misused to deny legitimate inventions without proper legal scrutiny and evidence.

Frivolous inventions and abstract theories – Delhi High Court refuses patent appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application due to lack of novelty and a significant procedural delay of 701 days. The appellants, who had filed a patent application for black-colored wearables with claimed effects on human energy, failed to provide scientific evidence or technical merit. The court upheld the Indian Patent Office’s decision, emphasizing that abstract ideas are not patentable and reaffirming the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines for appeals.

Patent Abandonment Overturned: Delhi HC Rules on FER Miscommunication

The Delhi High Court set aside the deemed abandonment of Waterotor’s Indian patent application, citing miscommunication regarding the First Examination Report (FER). The Court ruled that the lack of timely FER receipt justified reinstatement, directing the Patent Office to restore the application’s status to “pending” and allow a response within four weeks.

Shoes, footwears and deceptive similarity in Trademark law

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics, Inc., restraining Kiran Shoe Company from infringing its trademarks. The Court awarded ₹7,00,000 in damages and costs, emphasizing that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and aimed at leveraging New Balance’s reputation.

Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History

The Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction in a patent dispute over a fuel cap, citing ambiguous claims and prosecution history. The judgment highlights the need for precise claim drafting and careful interpretation in patent litigation.

Madras HC Overrules Procedural Rejection in France Telecom’s Patent Case

The Madras High Court allowed France Telecom’s writ petition, setting aside the procedural rejection of its patent application examination request. The judgment clarifies the treatment of agent errors under Indian patent law and upholds procedural fairness.

Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Novartis’s Ceritinib patent against Natco’s challenge, addressing divisional application issues and allegations of suppression. The injunction against Natco remains in force, reinforcing the enforceability of Novartis’s patent rights.