Patents | Intellepedia

The 20-Year Patent Term from the Date of Filing is Constitutionally Valid

The Calcutta High Court scrutinized the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act. The Petitoner argued for recalculating patent term from the date of grant, contending the current provision as arbitrary. However, the Court upheld the existing framework, emphasizing legislative discretion and international compliance.

A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

This post analyzes an Indian court case between Ericsson and Lava focusing on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. This section prohibits patents on mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs, and algorithms. The court evaluated the patentability of eight patents related to mobile communication technologies under Section 3(k).

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court overturned the Indian Patent Office’s decision to reject Imclone’s patent application for a monoclonal antibody to treat metastatic bone cancer. The Court disagreed with the Patent Office’s view that the antibody was merely “discovered in nature” and not an invention.

Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI

The Delhi High Court dismissed Lava’s attempt to revoke Ericsson’s patents based on alleged misrepresentation. The Court highlighted the high burden of proof needed and found Lava to have failed to demonstrate intentional deceit by Ericsson.

SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5

In this case, the Court has crystallized and reiterated several patent principles relating to patentability under Section 3(k), novelty, inventive step, infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), Exhaustion, FRAND royalty determination, and so on. Along with other principles, the Court has also outlined the principles for grant of actual costs.

Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

This post covers the aspects of infringement as discussed by the Delhi High Court in the Lava v. Ericsson case. The Court noted that the fulcrum of the dispute between the parties in this case was the issue of whether Lava was guilty of infringing Ericsson’s patents or not.

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3

Several aspects of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Licensing were discussed in the Ericsson Vs. Lava Case, and in this post, we will discuss three of those: Royalty Stacking, Hold Up, and Hold Out.

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Delhi High Court upholds decision against Google LLC in patent appeal, imposes Rs.1 lakh fine for misleading disclosure. Case delves into inventive step assessment, citing prior art and user preferences. Authored by Sowmya Murthy, Patents Team, BananaIP Counsels. Case Citation: Google LLC v. The Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 395/2022

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

While Part 1 of the Ericsson vs. Lava post series covered the summary of the court's judgement, this post discusses the principles reiterated by the...

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

In a comprehensive and extensive judgment, the Delhi High Court has recently adjudicated in favor of Ericsson in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The dispute was initiated by Ericsson against Lava over eight patents integral to the standards for 2G, Edge, and 3G technology implementations.