Patents | Intellepedia

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII

This article provides a detailed analysis of the novelty and inventive step of Ericsson’s AMR patents as examined in Ericsson Vs. Lava. The Delhi High Court’s findings illustrate how Indian patent law standards are applied to complex telecommunication inventions.

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

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the 20-year patent term from the date of filing under Section 53 of the Patents Act. The judgment clarifies the legislative scheme and confirms there is no inconsistency or arbitrariness in the provision.

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

The Delhi High Court analysed the validity of eight Ericsson patents under Section 3(k), following Lava’s challenge. Except for the first patent, the Court upheld the remaining patents, finding them to involve technical advancements beyond mere algorithms or mathematical methods.

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.