24 articles
The Delhi High Court interprets Section 3(d) in the agrochemical context by extending efficacy beyond therapeutic effect to encompass stability, usability, and practical field performance.
Labeling a test as ‘screening’ doesn’t make it patentable if it decides treatment. In Geron Corporation’s case, measuring telomere length to decide who receives telomerase therapy made the…
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a simple patent lesson: mixing known compounds will not do unless the mix delivers something unexpectedly better. In Crystal Crop, the claimed…
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the Controller cannot collapse examination and pre-grant opposition into a single composite order to sidestep a Section 14 hearing. The decision…
In Hirotsu Bio Science v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court held that branding a process as “in vitro detection” does not rescue it…
The Delhi High Court refused Novo Nordisk interim relief against Dr Reddy’s, finding that the Semaglutide species patent faces serious validity challenges in light of the earlier genus…
In Rallis India Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Others, the Madras High Court refused to assume that claims automatically inherit the priority date of a provisional,…
The draft amendments to the Patents Rules, 2003 seek to bring both conduct and misconduct of patent agents within a clear disciplinary framework. This piece walks through the…
Delhi High Court refused FMC’s interim plea on a Cyantraniliprole intermediate, citing credible invalidity under Sections 64(1)(a) and 64(1)(e) and a tenable Gillette defence. With expiry close, damages…
Delhi HC rules Sequenom’s NIPT methods are excluded as “diagnostic” under Section 3(i) and hit by 3(b) for sex selection concerns, while keeping the door open for tools…