Patents | Intellepedia

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that objections on insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and precise. Procedural lapses by the Indian patent office can undermine the fairness of the patent examination process.

Courts Weigh on Inordinate Delay in Patent Orders and Scope of Claim Amendments

The Delhi and Madras High Courts recently set aside patent refusal orders, addressing inordinate delays and the scope of permissible claim amendments. These judgments clarify key patent law principles and reinforce procedural fairness in India.

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned the refusal of Microsoft’s patent application, clarifying the correct approach to assessing inventive step and the PSITA standard under Indian law. The decision highlights the need for a nuanced analysis of prior art and patent claims.

Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (February 23rd to March 1st)

This report analyses Indian patent and design statistics for the week ending 1st March 2024, with detailed city-wise and yearly data. Patent applications, examinations, grants, and design registrations are presented objectively for informed insights.

Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (February 16th to 23rd)

This report analyses Indian patent and design statistics for the week ending 23rd February 2024, covering publications, grants, examinations, and city-level trends. It provides valuable insights for stakeholders in the intellectual property domain.

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

The Madras High Court held that a system for selectively concealing physical addresses in e-commerce is not a business method under Section 3k. The decision clarifies the distinction between technological inventions and business method exclusions in Indian patent law.

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

The Madras High Court has overturned the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a soluble foaming composition patent, highlighting procedural lapses in considering applicant submissions. The matter will now be reconsidered by another patent officer within four months.

Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.

The Madras High Court clarified the distinction between assignment and declaration dates for proof of right under Section 7(2) of the Patents Act. This ruling guides applicants and controllers on procedural objections in Indian patent applications.

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside several patent refusal orders, highlighting the need for proper reasoning and adherence to legal procedures. These judgments clarify essential aspects of patentability assessment and reinforce procedural fairness in Indian patent law.

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside a patent refusal for an image construction apparatus, citing insufficient reasoning under Section 3(k) and inventive step. The Court remanded the matter for reconsideration, highlighting the importance of well-reasoned decisions in patent law.