Case Reviews | Intellepedia

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).

The Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the order

In this review petition filed before the Delhi High Court, the Court rejected the plea filed by the Trademark Officer to remove their names from the order.

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.

Lights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADY

The Delhi High Court has restrained KSC Industries from using the mark “Everyday” for lighters, finding it deceptively similar to Eveready’s well-known trademark for batteries and lighting products.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

Premier Injunction for the Premier League : Viacom18 knocks out IPL Pirates with Dynamic+ Injunction

Viacom 18 Media Private Limited obtained a groundbreaking Dynamic + injunction from the Delhi High Court against rogue websites broadcasting pirated IPL matches. This legal victory ensures real-time protection of Viacom’s exclusive broadcasting rights.