Patents | Intellepedia

Failure to Disclose Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Procedural Fairness, Rules Calcutta High Court

"Dictionary entry highlighting the word 'disclose' with its definition to make information known or public."

Introduction The Calcutta High Court recently overturned the Controller’s decision to reject a patent application in the case of UCB Pharma GmbH & Anr. v....

Indian IP Office Rolls Out Utility for Patent, Design, Trademark, Copyright & GI Statistics

A bar chart with blue and teal bars and trend lines, alongside a black text box with the title “Indian IP Office Rolls Out Utility for Patent, Design, Trademark, Copyright & GI Statistics” in white font, highlighting the launch of a centralized IP statistics dashboard.

The Indian IP Office has launched an online IP Statistics Dashboard offering real-time data on filings and registrations across IP types. Users can explore patent, trademark, copyright, design, and GI trends with interactive tools. Though provisional, the tool centralizes valuable insights into India’s IP landscape.

Risdiplam – Spinal Muscular Atrophy Case: Delhi HC Favors Public Health Over Roche Patent

Delhi High Court Denies Injunction on SMA Drug Patent, Prioritises Public Interest Over Patent Rights

The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated March 24th, 2024, rejected the interim injunction application of F Hoffmann-La Roche AG (“Roche”) against Natco...

When Delay Becomes Denial: Calcutta High Court Overturns Patent Rejection

The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in BASF SE v. Joint Controller of Patents warrants attention for multiple reasons, particularly as it addresses...

From Algorithms To AI: Patentability Under The 2025 CRI Draft Guidelines

The 2025 Draft CRI Guidelines issued by the Indian Patent Office refine the criteria for patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), emphasizing technical effect, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, and proper claim drafting for AI, blockchain, and emerging technologies.

Patentability vs. Procedure: Finding the Right Balance during patent examinations

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Arcturus Therapeutics, overturning the Controller’s rejection of its patent application on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance should not override substantive examination, directing the Patent Office to reassess the application on its merits.

Madras High Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Suit, Allows Coexistence of Technologies

The Madras High Court ruled on a patent infringement dispute involving Arumugam Rajendra Babu and Ashok Leyland over battery-swapping technology. The Court found no infringement and dismissed both the suit and counterclaims, allowing both parties to coexist. The ruling addressed prior art, novelty, and the scope of patent protection in the electric vehicle sector.

Frivolous inventions and abstract theories – Delhi High Court refuses patent appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application due to lack of novelty and a significant procedural delay of 701 days. The appellants, who had filed a patent application for black-colored wearables with claimed effects on human energy, failed to provide scientific evidence or technical merit. The court upheld the Indian Patent Office’s decision, emphasizing that abstract ideas are not patentable and reaffirming the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines for appeals.

Patent Abandonment Overturned: Delhi HC Rules on FER Miscommunication

The Delhi High Court set aside the deemed abandonment of Waterotor’s Indian patent application, citing miscommunication regarding the First Examination Report (FER). The Court ruled that the lack of timely FER receipt justified reinstatement, directing the Patent Office to restore the application’s status to “pending” and allow a response within four weeks.

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.