Gaurav Mishra | Intellepedia

Section 3(j), Essentially biological processes and human intervention

The Madras High Court considered whether human intervention in a plant breeding method excluded it from section 3(j) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded to the Patent Office, underlining the importance of clear reasoning in patent refusals involving essentially biological processes.

Century Ply’s claims of Trademark infringement do not fly, rules court

The Delhi Tis Hazari Court rejected Century Ply’s trademark infringement claims against Balaji Ply, citing lack of direct evidence and reliance on hearsay. The court dismissed the suit and awarded costs to the defendant after finding the plaintiff unable to prove its allegations.

Court Lifts injunction on Tractor-Forklift Design

The Madras High Court lifted an injunction on a tractor-forklift design, finding the design not new or original under Indian law. The case highlights the requirements for design registration and addresses the boundaries of industrial design protection.

Another Dis’connected’ order by the registry, set aside by the Court

The Calcutta High Court set aside a trademark refusal for Electronica India due to lack of reasoning and significant procedural lapses, instructing the registry to provide a fresh hearing. The order highlights the importance of fair hearing practices in Indian trademark law.

Patent examination should not kill the scientific temper of an inventor

The Madras High Court set aside the rejection of Industeel France’s patent application, stressing the need for fair and consistent patent examination. The judgment highlights the importance of protecting inventors’ scientific temper and ensuring time-bound decisions under Indian patent law.

New claims, Old claims, and Claim Amendments: Section 59 of the Patents Act

This post examines a Madras High Court ruling on Section 59 of the Patents Act regarding patent claim amendments. The Court clarified procedural requirements and applicant rights during the patent examination process in India.

Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

This post discusses how the Delhi High Court assessed infringement of standard essential patents in Ericsson v. Lava, evaluating claim charts and the two-step infringement test. The court’s structured approach clarifies key aspects of SEP litigation in India.

Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal order under section 15 of the Patents Act, directing a de novo reconsideration. The case underscores the need for reasoned decisions in Indian patent law proceedings.

Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 come into effect, significant changes introduced.

The Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 bring notable procedural changes to the Indian patent system, including shorter timelines, new forms, and updated requirements. These amendments aim to simplify processes and enhance compliance for patent applicants and patentees.

Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma reviews crucial aspects of patent law, including credible challenge and the distinction between patent coverage and disclosure. The Court granted an interim injunction to Kudos Pharma, reinforcing core principles of Indian patent jurisprudence.