Patents | Intellepedia

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?

Fair Hearing First: Delhi HC Sets Aside Patent Refusal Over New Grounds in Order

A blue wooden background with the words “drilling holes into patent refusals?” in black text, alongside an orange power drill angled toward the text.

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a Wirtgen GMBH patent application, finding that new objections introduced for the first time in the final order – without prior notice – violated the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.

In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Telomerase Therapy Patent Barred under Section 3(i)

Banner image with a yellow geometric background, a light bulb illustration in the centre, and bold black text reading: In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Patent Refused under Section 3(i).

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 method a diagnostic process, blocking its patent.

Speak Up or Step Aside: Bombay HC on What a Post-Grant Opposition Order Must Do

Two hands pull a rope taut from opposite sides against a dark background, with a turmeric coated root tied at the center.

In Saurabh Arora v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Bombay High Court set aside a post-grant patent opposition order that dismissed a challenge under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act without recording a single reason. The court found complete non-application of mind in an order affecting a Cadila Pharmaceuticals patent – but will it survive a fresh look?

Steering the divide: Steer Engineering’s divisional application denied by Court

A surreal scene of a car steering wheel standing upright in a narrow trench cut through a dry grassy field under a partly cloudy sky at sunset reflecting Steer Engineering’s failed patent appeal and the Court upholding the refusal of the divisional application.

Madras High Court upheld the refusal of Steer Engineering’s divisional patent application, affirming lack of inventive step and overlap with the parent filing.