Patents | Intellepedia

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

The Madras High Court held that Section 3c of the Patents Act, 1970 does not exclude engineered non-living substances from patent protection. The ruling clarifies the distinction between discovery and invention for biotechnology patents in India.

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

The Delhi High Court in Ericsson vs Lava clarified that revocation of a patent on the ground of misrepresentation requires strong, clear evidence of intentional deceit. In this case, Lava failed to meet the legal threshold, resulting in rejection of its revocation claim.

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

This post discusses the Delhi High Court’s approach to awarding actual costs in the Ericsson v Lava standard essential patent litigation. It outlines the legal principles applied and analyses the Court’s reasoning, focusing on party conduct and litigation strategy in determining cost awards.

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

This post discusses how the Delhi High Court assessed infringement of standard essential patents in Ericsson v. Lava, evaluating claim charts and the two-step infringement test. The court’s structured approach clarifies key aspects of SEP litigation in India.

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

This post discusses patent hold up, royalty stacking, and hold out in the context of the Ericsson v Lava dispute. The analysis highlights the Court’s reliance on evidence while addressing FRAND licensing arguments and SEP enforcement in India.

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

The Delhi High Court dismissed Google’s appeal against the rejection of its patent application, finding no inventive step over prior art. A fine of Rs.1 lakh was also imposed on Google for incorrect disclosure regarding its European patent application.

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

This post analyses the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of Section 3(k) in Ericsson vs Lava, focusing on the patentability of algorithms and computer programs in India. It clarifies the assessment criteria for such inventions and the legislative intent behind software patentability.

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

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ericsson vs. Lava clarifies major legal standards for standard essential patents, FRAND royalties, and infringement in India. This case note examines the Court’s findings on patent validity, damages, and licensing practices in the telecom sector.

Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.

The Delhi High Court overturned a patent refusal for a PCT national phase application, stressing the importance of procedural adherence in claim examination. The Court directed a fresh evaluation, emphasizing accurate application of legal provisions and detailed analysis of objections.

All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents, a recent decision by Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently addressed the interplay between the all elements rule and the doctrine of equivalents in a patent dispute over brick-making machines. The Court granted interim relief, affirming a nuanced approach to patent claim analysis and infringement in Indian law.