Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates Featured image for Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.

Read more about Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent Featured image for Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent application for AI-integrated persona augmentation. The Court ruled that the invention lacked sufficient technical detail, inventive step, and patent-eligible subject matter under the Patents Act. It upheld the Controller’s decision, emphasizing the absence of tangible technical effects and clear disclosure requirements.

Read more about Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)

Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i) Featured image for Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)

The Delhi High Court, in Syngenta Crop Protection AG vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, examined the rejection of an Indian patent application under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Court ruled that plant treatment methods are distinct from agricultural processes, referring to the 2003 amendment to Section 3(i), and remanded the case for fresh examination with amended claims.

Read more about Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)

The Draft guidelines for AYUSH Patent Applications

The Draft guidelines for AYUSH Patent Applications Featured image for The Draft guidelines for AYUSH Patent Applications

The Intellectual Property (IP) Office has issued Draft Guidelines for the processing of patent applications related to AYUSH systems and related inventions. These guidelines aim to streamline the evaluation process of patent applications concerning Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homeopathy.

Read more about The Draft guidelines for AYUSH Patent Applications

Court clarifies distinction between business methods and technical inventions in section 3(k) related case

Court clarifies distinction between business methods and technical inventions in section 3(k) related case Featured image for Court clarifies distinction between business methods and technical inventions in section 3(k) related case

The Delhi High Court set aside the Indian Patent Office’s rejection of Comviva Technologies Limited’s patent application under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court recognized that the invention provided a technical advancement in securing electronic payment transactions. It directed the Patent Office to proceed with granting the patent, subject to any further objections under the law.

Read more about Court clarifies distinction between business methods and technical inventions in section 3(k) related case

Evaluation of Technical Advancement and Compliance with CRI Guidelines under Indian Patent Law

Evaluation of Technical Advancement and Compliance with CRI Guidelines under Indian Patent Law Featured image for Evaluation of Technical Advancement and Compliance with CRI Guidelines under Indian Patent Law

The Madras High Court allowed Idemia Identity & Security France’s appeal, setting aside a refusal order under Section 3(k) for a cryptography patent. The Court ruled the order as a non-speaking one and in violation of natural justice. It directed fresh consideration of the matter, emphasizing technical contributions and adherence to CRI and European guidelines.

Read more about Evaluation of Technical Advancement and Compliance with CRI Guidelines under Indian Patent Law

Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History

Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History Featured image for Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History

The Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction sought by Jay Switches in a patent infringement dispute against Sandhar Technologies. The Court found no prima facie infringement of Jay Switches’ patent for an airtight fuel cap and highlighted ambiguity in the claims. Sandhar was directed to maintain detailed accounts of product sales pending further proceedings.

Read more about Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History

Madras HC Overrules Procedural Rejection in France Telecom’s Patent Case

Madras HC Overrules Procedural Rejection in France Telecom’s Patent Case Featured image for Madras HC Overrules Procedural Rejection in France Telecom’s Patent Case

The Madras High Court allowed France Telecom’s writ petition, overturning orders rejecting its patent application due to procedural delays. The Court emphasized that errors by agents should not deprive applicants of statutory rights, directing the Deputy Controller of Patents to process the application as per the Patents Act, 1970.

Read more about Madras HC Overrules Procedural Rejection in France Telecom’s Patent Case

Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity

Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity Featured image for Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity

The Delhi High Court upheld Novartis’s patent on Ceritinib, rejecting Natco Pharma’s claims of invalidity and allegations of material suppression. The court ruled that the divisional application’s refusal was immaterial to the case and reaffirmed the patent’s validity based on inventive step, novelty, and therapeutic benefits. Natco’s application to vacate the injunction was dismissed.

Read more about Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity