Court Remands Patent Rejection Over IV Catheter, Cites Flawed Obviousness Test
Delhi HC sets aside patent rejection for IV catheter, citing flawed inventive step analysis under Agriboard test and lack of reasoned decision.
Patents
1,306 articles
No Territorial Jurisdiction, No Quia Timet Relief: Lessons from a Patent Case
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…
Strategic Delay Costs Novartis Its Cross-Examination Rights
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…
CRI Patentability Affirmed: Madras High Court Rules in Favor of Syngene
Madras HC upholds CRI patentability in Syngene’s case, ruling novel hardware isn’t a prerequisite for protection under Section 3(k).
Non-Disclosure of Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Natural Justice, Rules Delhi High Court
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…
Pharmacyclics Divisional Patent Application Upheld by Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court upholds Pharmacyclics divisional patent application for ibrutinib-anti-CD20 therapy, interpreting Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
From Refusal to Reconsideration: A Second Chance for Zhejiang’s Hair Dye Patent
Madras High Court gives Zhejiang’s hair dye patent a new lease on life, quashing an unreasoned refusal and directing a fresh, reasoned hearing.
Products Made During Patent Term are Infringing Even After Expiry
In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim v. Femilab Healthcare, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that interim injunctions granted to prevent patent infringement cannot continue after the patent…
Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court
Madras High Court backs Amgen on lyophilized peptibody formulations, rejecting Section 3(d), 3(e) and inventive step objections. Grant directed, with claims narrowed to supported sequences.
Oral Insulin Patent Case: Efficacy Not a Requirement Under Section 3(e)
In the case of Oramed Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents & Designs, the Calcutta High Court examined the refusal of a patent for an oral insulin composition.…