The Calcutta High Court has set aside the refusal of ITC’s patent application for a nicotine aerosol device. The Court found that the Controller’s reliance on morality grounds under Section 3(b) was improper and unsupported by cited documents, ensuring a fresh review of the patent.
Read more about ITC’s Nicotine Device Patent Rejection on Public Health Grounds Set AsideCategory: Patents
Patent for Enzyme-Based Animal Feed Supplementation Cleared of Section 3(i) Refusal
The Madras High Court has allowed Kemin Industries’ patent on an enzyme-based animal feed method, overturning the Controller’s Section 3(i) refusal. The Court ruled that the method involves feed supplementation rather than treatment, confirming novelty and inventive step in the process.
Read more about Patent for Enzyme-Based Animal Feed Supplementation Cleared of Section 3(i) RefusalAnti-Cancer Patent Refusal Set Aside for Not Identifying ‘Known Substance’
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of an anti-cancer patent filed by Taiho Pharmaceutical. The Court highlighted that objections under Section 3(d) must explicitly state the “known substance” being referenced and directed a fresh hearing for proper assessment.
Read more about Anti-Cancer Patent Refusal Set Aside for Not Identifying ‘Known Substance’Not Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal Formulation
The Calcutta High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application filed by UPL Ltd., involving innovative fungicidal combinations. The Court found that the rejection order issued by the Controller lacked detailed reasoning and had procedural deficiencies, particularly concerning inventive step and treatment of experimental data.
Read more about Not Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal FormulationPatent on Carbon Capture Process freed from IPO refusal
The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of a patent on a carbon capture process, citing the Patent Office’s failure to adequately justify its decision and its reliance on new, unaddressed grounds. The Court remanded the case for a fresh hearing with a focus on technical and economic evaluations.
Read more about Patent on Carbon Capture Process freed from IPO refusalAkebia’s patent for Anemia therapy gets fresh blood from Court
In a recent case the Madras High Court upheld Akebia Therapeutics’ appeal on its anaemia treatment patent, interpreting Section 59 to allow claim amendments from treatment methods to compositions, as long as they’re disclosed in the original application. The case underscores the significance of well-documented specifications in pharmaceutical patents.
Read more about Akebia’s patent for Anemia therapy gets fresh blood from CourtPatent Claim Amendments – Court’s observation of amendments to systems, methods and use claims
The Calcutta High Court remanded a patent application back to the Controller of Patents, citing infrimities in evaluating claim amendments. The Court stressed that mere change in claim types—method to system—without analyzing technical substance cannot justify rejection under Section 59 of the Indian Patents Act.
Read more about Patent Claim Amendments – Court’s observation of amendments to systems, methods and use claimsCan a Pre-Grant Opposition Survive After Patent Grant?
The Delhi High Court confirmed that once a patent grant order is signed, a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) is no longer valid. This case involving Vertex Pharmaceuticals affirms that the signature date is definitive, regardless of later administrative delays.
Read more about Can a Pre-Grant Opposition Survive After Patent Grant?AbbVie’s Patent Refusal Upheld over Impermissible Shift from Treatment to Product Claims
The Delhi High Court has dismissed AbbVie’s appeal regarding the refusal of their patent application for an anti-cMet antibody-drug conjugate. The court found the proposed amendments exceeded permissible scope under the Indian Patents Act.
Read more about AbbVie’s Patent Refusal Upheld over Impermissible Shift from Treatment to Product ClaimsWhen Dye Becomes Decisive: Patent Infringement, Equivalence, and Estoppel
In a patent infringement case, the Delhi High Court denied Crystal Crop Protection’s request for an interim injunction against Safex Chemicals. The dispute in the case centred on a herbicidal formulation containing Clodinafop, Metribuzin, and a dyeing agent. The Court held that the dye was an essential claim element and that Safex’s dye-free products did not infringe, even by equivalence. It also invoked prosecution history estoppel, noting that Crystal’s own claim amendments precluded a broad claim interpretation.
Read more about When Dye Becomes Decisive: Patent Infringement, Equivalence, and Estoppel