Patents | Intellepedia

Patent Rights Protected Despite NBA Approval Delay: Fresh Examination Directed

Illustration of a courtroom scene where a woman presents a box labeled “Herbal Composition” containing herbal ingredients, while judges and lawyers review documents during a patent hearing

Patent rights protected despite NBA approval delay, with fresh examination directed.

10 Day IP Practice Courses to Build Practice Ready Professionals for an AI Enabled Practice

IP practice courses for AI professionals

Many students and professionals study intellectual property law, but only a few receive training that prepares them for actual practice. To help bridge this gap, Intellepedia’s education and training team of experienced IP attorneys is seeking interest in proposed 10 day capsular courses designed to create practice ready IP attorneys and practitioners for an AI enabled practice.

No Reasons, No Refusal – and No Absolute Bar Anymore: Bombay HC on Atomic Energy & Nuclear Patent Rejections

Radioactive hazard symbol on yellow and dark grey striped background, illustrating patent rejection atomic energy India

Must the government explain why it refuses a patent on atomic energy grounds? In Huntington Alloys Corporation v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court held that even an absolute statutory power demands a reasoned order – and the SHANTI Act 2025 has since rewritten the rules on nuclear patentability entirely.

AI Inventorship and the DABUS Refusal in India: Patent Opponent’s Submissions in the Patent Office Order

In Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor of a food container invention. Although the Indian Patent Office refused the pre-grant opposition filed by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala in a separate order, its order refusing the application substantially Includes/mentions the opponent’s statutory and comparative-law submissions on inventorship and proof of right.

Inventorship of AI Technologies (DABUS): Submissions of the Opponent

In Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor of a food container invention. The Opponent challenges that position by arguing that Indian patent law recognises only human inventors, and that an AI system cannot furnish the inventorship, entitlement, or proof of right needed to sustain a patent application.

Inventorship of DABUS in India: Can an AI System Be the True and First Inventor?

In the case of Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler sought a patent for a food container invention and named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor. That choice led to objections on whether an AI system can be recognised as an inventor in India, whether rights can flow from such inventorship, and whether the same issue could be raised through a pre grant opposition.

Patent Attorneys: From Strategic Professionals to Ordinary Vendors? The Changing Soul of India’s Patent Ecosystem

For a long time, patent attorneys occupied an important place in India’s innovation and business ecosystem because they helped companies identify protectable value, convert innovation into legal rights, and build patent portfolios capable of supporting business growth and financial success. Today, that position is changing. As artificial intelligence is reshaping patent work, cost pressures are intensifying, quality concerns are weakening, and regulatory as well as contractual burdens are increasing, the patent attorney is facing a future in which specialised professional standing is giving way to a vendor driven role. If that change continues, it will not only affect patent attorneys, but may also weaken the patent ecosystem itself and its contribution to innovation driven growth, commercialisation, and knowledge based progress.

Voicemonk Patent Prevails Over Flipkart: Innovation vs Opposition

Voicemonk Patent prevails over Flipkart in a key patent dispute, clarifying novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(k) under Indian patent law

Patent Opposition Board Report: Can you challenge it before the final order?

A close-up of a formal legal document stamped in red with the word "PRELIMINARY," resting on a dark wooden desk. The document shows sections headed "Findings of Fact," "Conclusions of Law," and "Recommendation," with a blank date line at the bottom. A gavel is partially visible in the upper right corner.

When is a patent opposition board recommendation ripe for a writ petition, and when is it simply too soon? The Madras High Court tackled this question in a dispute between E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC and Zydus Healthcare Limited over a cancer-treatment patent, with significant implications for patent opposition board recommendation practice in India.

Breaking Beams, Breaking Records: Delhi High Court Awards ₹152 Crore in Antenna Patent Infringement Suit Against Rosenberger

Featured image for blog post on patent infringement damages in India - illustration of a cellular antenna tower contrasting symmetrical and asymmetrical beam patterns, representing Indian Patent No. 240893 upheld by the Delhi High Court in the landmark CCA v Rosenberger ruling awarding ₹152 crore in damages.

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Indian Patent No. 240893 for asymmetrical beam antenna technology in Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH, rejecting all revocation grounds. The court awarded ₹152 crore in patent infringement damages – could this signal a new era for patent enforcement in India?