Patents | Intellepedia

Steering the divide: Steer Engineering’s divisional application denied by Court

A surreal scene of a car steering wheel standing upright in a narrow trench cut through a dry grassy field under a partly cloudy sky at sunset reflecting Steer Engineering’s failed patent appeal and the Court upholding the refusal of the divisional application.

Madras High Court upheld the refusal of Steer Engineering’s divisional patent application, affirming lack of inventive step and overlap with the parent filing.

No double riding! Court clarifies on patent revocation plea in case involving Philips

The image shows a Businessman balancing with one foot on each of two small wooden boats in open water, illustrating the attempt by one of the Parties in this case to seek patent revocation through multiple forums.

In the case of Versuni Holding B.V. Trading as Preethi v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, the patent holder had already sued for infringement before the Delhi High Court. The alleged infringer then filed a written statement there seeking invalidity and revocation of the patent, but also filed a separate revocation petition before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed that separate revocation petition and accepted the objection to its maintainability.

Mere Admixture or True Innovation? Crystal Crop’s Herbicidal Composition Fails the Synergy Test

A hand writing the word “SYNERGY” above the equation “1 + 1 > 2” in red marker, illustrating the concept that combined elements can produce a greater effect than their individual contributions.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a simple patent lesson: mixing known compounds will not do unless the mix delivers something unexpectedly better. In Crystal Crop, the claimed herbicidal composition failed that test.

Amendment of claims at Appellate Stage under section 59 of the Patents Act

Banner graphic displaying the text “Amendment of Claims at Appellate Stage” with a central icon representing a heat exchanger, on a blue and tan background.

In the case of Daikin Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Indian Patent Office refused Daikin’s patent application relating to a shell and plate heat exchanger on the ground of lack of novelty over a prior art document. During the appeal before the High Court, Daikin sought permission to amend claim 1 by incorporating additional limitations already disclosed in the specification. The court examined whether such an amendment could be permitted at the appellate stage under Section 59 of the Patents Act.

Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning: Court Reiterates Mandatory Five-Step Test for Inventive Step

A white air humidifier releasing mist in a green room with a blurred background, overlaid with the title “Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning” in bold text.

In the case of Energeo Works India Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Patent Office refused a patent application relating to an air cooling system that used a mist of water to pre cool ambient air entering an air cooled chiller assembly. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step in view of two prior art documents and common general knowledge. The applicant challenged the refusal on the ground that the order was unreasoned and that the Controller had not applied the correct legal test for obviousness.

Why Canva’s “Present and Record” Feature Is Still Restricted in India?

Illustration of a woman using Canva on a laptop with a lock featuring the Indian flag over the screen and the headline “Canva’s Missing Feature in India!”, symbolizing the Present and Record feature being blocked in India.

Why Canva’s “Present and Record” feature is still restricted in India and how the interim injunction in the RxPrism patent dispute continues to operate.

Ideas Fly, Adoption Walks: Why New Technology Still Takes Its Own Sweet Time

WIPO’s World Intellectual Property Report 2026 makes one point painfully clear: ideas move fast, but adoption still depends on unglamorous complements like skills, infrastructure, and maintenance. India’s examples show why diffusion is an execution game, not a press-release game.

Wanted Dead or Alive: Delhi High Court Holds Patent Revocation Survives Expiry and Section 107 Defence

Hand wearing a blue glove holding a small vial beside torn paper with the words “How to Survive,” symbolizing the Patent revocation case as decided by the Delhi High Court between Boehringer Ingelheim v. Controller

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents & Anr., the Delhi High Court addressed two important questions under the Patents Act: whether a revocation petition survives patent expiry, and whether it can continue after a Section 107 invalidity defence is raised in an infringement suit. The dispute arose from parallel revocation and infringement proceedings relating to Patent IN 243301 covering Linagliptin. The court held that revocation under Section 64 remains maintainable despite patent expiry and is not barred by a Section 107 defence.

Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition Are Independent Proceedings; Composite Disposal Unsustainable

Bold text reading “NO SHORTCUTS,” with “NO” in red and “SHORTCUTS” in white, set against a dark background featuring Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the Controller cannot collapse examination and pre-grant opposition into a single composite order to sidestep a Section 14 hearing. The decision reinforces natural justice and procedural discipline in Indian patent prosecution.

Should a pre-grant notice be issued before patent grant to facilitate filing of divisional applications? Court clarifies

Minimalist office interior with wooden shelves and books on a white wall, featuring a bold “Divide & Conquer” wall graphic under a hanging lamp above a wooden desk.

Delhi High Court clarifies that no pre-grant notice is required under Section 43 and divisional applications must be filed before patent grant.