Patents | Intellepedia

Monoclonal antibodies and Patents – How the Madras High Court interpreted Section 3(c)

The Madras High Court clarified the interpretation of Section 3(c) in the context of monoclonal antibodies patent in Genmab A/S v. Assistant Controller of Patents. The court emphasized the importance of novelty and technical advancement for patent eligibility.

Court criticizes Patent Office for using outdated CRI Guidelines

The Madras High Court criticized the Patent Office for using outdated CRI guidelines of 2016 instead of the revised 2017 guidelines in evaluating Microsoft’s patent application. The court emphasized the importance of assessing technical effect or contribution in CRIs without considering hardware.

Note on the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge

The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge aims to enhance patent system efficiency and transparency regarding genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s Refusal

The Madras High Court, in a decision dated March 19, 2024, set aside a patent refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in the case of a patent application filed by Novozymes A/S. This post summarizes the decision of the court in this case.

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).

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.

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.

Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (May 3rd to 10th)

19th issue of the Indian Patent Journal (10th May 2024) features 1,745 patent publications, 591 grants, and 1,017 registered designs.

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).