In Base SE v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that scientific and technical inventions addressing agricultural problems are not excluded under Section 3(h). It…
Anjali Santhosh · 14 Oct 2025
Delhi HC upholds Saint-Gobain patent rejection, ruling that the glass coating claim lacked inventive step and failed to show technical advancement.
Sowmya S Murthy · 10 Oct 2025
Delhi HC affirms rejection of a patent on ZLD process from distillery waste, citing lack of inventive step and application of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.
Gaurav Mishra · 9 Oct 2025
Delhi HC sets aside patent rejection for IV catheter, citing flawed inventive step analysis under Agriboard test and lack of reasoned decision.
Gaurav Mishra · 3 Oct 2025
In the case of Helsinn Healthcare SA vs AET Laboratories, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain a patent infringement action filed in anticipation of future infringement. The…
Dr. Kalyan Kankanala · 1 Oct 2025
The Delhi High Court dismissed Novartis’s writ petitions, ruling it had waived cross-examination by opting for rebuttal evidence. The Controller’s orders were upheld, with the patent already revoked…
Neetha Mohan · 23 Sep 2025
Madras HC upholds CRI patentability in Syngene’s case, ruling novel hardware isn’t a prerequisite for protection under Section 3(k).
Sowmya S Murthy · 19 Sep 2025
In Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court emphasized procedural fairness and ruled that the non-disclosure of prior art in a hearing notice constitutes a…
Anjali Santhosh · 16 Sep 2025
Calcutta High Court upholds Pharmacyclics divisional patent application for ibrutinib-anti-CD20 therapy, interpreting Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sowmya S Murthy · 10 Sep 2025
Madras High Court gives Zhejiang’s hair dye patent a new lease on life, quashing an unreasoned refusal and directing a fresh, reasoned hearing.
Intellepedia · 9 Sep 2025