Intellectual Property | Intellepedia

Common Public License Version 1.0

The Common Public License Version 1.0 is an IBM-drafted open source license detailing copyright and patent rights, distribution conditions, and liability limitations. It sets clear rules on commercial distribution and modification, maintaining a structured legal framework for software use.

Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) – Version 1.0

The Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) sets out the rights and responsibilities for use, modification, and distribution of Sun Microsystems software. It outlines key conditions, including source code disclosure and clear identification of modifications, while limiting liability and warranty.

SIPP scheme, UGC asks Universities to provide IPR as an optional subject, NASA to License Patent Portfolio, Treadmill patent infringement and more

This weekly update covers Indian patent statistics, SIPP scheme developments, UGC’s push for IPR education, and notable cases such as NASA’s patent licensing and treadmill patent disputes. The analysis offers clear, factual insights into current trends and legal updates in the intellectual property landscape.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

The Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty held that human-made microorganisms are patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The case clarified that patent eligibility depends on human ingenuity rather than the living or nonliving status of the invention.

Apache License, Version 2.0

The Apache License Version 2.0 provides structured rights and obligations for software distribution and modification in India. It addresses copyright, patent rights, liability, and trademark use with a clear legal framework.

R.G. Anand vs. Delux Films and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1613

The R.G. Anand vs. Delux Films case clarified that Indian copyright law protects expression, not mere ideas. The Supreme Court found no substantial similarity between the play and the film, setting an important precedent on copyright infringement.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Dua Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 1988 Arb. L. R. 315

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Dua Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. addresses key issues of trademark infringement and consumer confusion in pharmaceuticals. The case reinforces the legal standards for similarity and passing off in Indian trademark law.

Rotec Indus. v. Mitsubishi Gajarsa Corp., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

The Rotec v Mitsubishi case examines alleged patent infringement involving a US-patented conveyor system for the Three Gorges Dam project. The Federal Circuit clarified the interpretation of offers to sell and the scope of liability under section 271 of US patent law, ultimately finding no infringement.

State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Sign. Fin. Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

This post discusses State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, a pivotal case on the patentability of data processing systems and business methods under US law. The decision clarifies the treatment of mathematical algorithms and business methods in patent eligibility analysis.

Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156 (1892)

Topliff v Topliff examines the legal criteria for patent reissue, focusing on scope, inadvertence, and timeliness. The court upheld the second reissue, emphasizing the need for diligence and conformity to original invention boundaries.