Patents | Intellepedia

Strategic Delay Costs Novartis Its Cross-Examination Rights

Banner with text “Tactical Delay Proves Costly for Novartis” beside a clock and wooden blocks spelling DELAY on an orange background

The Delhi High Court dismissed Novartis’s writ petitions, ruling it had waived cross-examination by opting for rebuttal evidence. The Controller’s orders were upheld, with the patent already revoked days earlier.

CRI Patentability Affirmed: Madras High Court Rules in Favor of Syngene

Illustration of a legal decision on computer-related inventions: code snippet on the left, legal gavel and scales on the right, with the title 'Madras HC Reboots Computer-Related Invention Refusal' in the center.

Madras HC upholds CRI patentability in Syngene’s case, ruling novel hardware isn’t a prerequisite for protection under Section 3(k).

Non-Disclosure of Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Natural Justice, Rules Delhi High Court

3D illustration of repeating blue molecular structures representing chemical compounds, symbolizing scientific formulations or agrochemical compositions.

In Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court emphasized procedural fairness and ruled that the non-disclosure of prior art in a hearing notice constitutes a breach of natural justice. The Court remanded the case for fresh evaluation.

Pharmacyclics Divisional Patent Application Upheld by Calcutta High Court

3D molecular structures illustrating chemical bonding and a detailed fluorinated organic compound model with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and fluorine atoms

Calcutta High Court upholds Pharmacyclics divisional patent application for ibrutinib-anti-CD20 therapy, interpreting Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.

From Refusal to Reconsideration: A Second Chance for Zhejiang’s Hair Dye Patent

Hairbrush and bowl of white hair dye cream beside a brown hair lock; banner text: A Fresh Review for Hair Dye Patent

Madras High Court gives Zhejiang’s hair dye patent a new lease on life, quashing an unreasoned refusal and directing a fresh, reasoned hearing.

Products Made During Patent Term are Infringing Even After Expiry

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim v. Femilab Healthcare, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that interim injunctions granted to prevent patent infringement cannot continue after the patent has expired. The court held that such relief loses effect with the end of the patent term. However, it stated that infringing products made during the patent’s validity may still be restrained from being sold or used after the patent expires.

Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court

Banner with lab test tubes and a microscope; text reads 'Amgen’s Peptibody Patent Refusal Overturned' following Madras High Court ruling

Madras High Court backs Amgen on lyophilized peptibody formulations, rejecting Section 3(d), 3(e) and inventive step objections. Grant directed, with claims narrowed to supported sequences.

Oral Insulin Patent Case: Efficacy Not a Requirement Under Section 3(e)

In the case of Oramed Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents & Designs, the Calcutta High Court examined the refusal of a patent for an oral insulin composition. The Court held that inventive step cannot be determined by combining prior art without a clear rationale and stated that therapeutic efficacy is not a requirement under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act. The refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Cannot raise new ground while refusing patent, rules Delhi High Court

Illustration with text "New grounds for patent refusal?" in orange font on a light purple background, alongside a yellow hand pointing upward with the word "NO" repeated on each finger.

Delhi HC set aside a patent refusal against Proprietect L P, citing violation of natural justice, failure to consider amended claims, and lack of reasoning.

Delhi High Court Patent Injunction: Aquestia Wins Against Automat Industries

A 3D-rendered digital image depicting a legal and engineering theme. The foreground shows a judge's gavel resting on legal documents with metal fittings and coins scattered nearby. In the background, mechanical valve systems are integrated with justice scales, symbolizing a legal dispute over industrial components, likely fluid control valves. The scene combines elements of law and technology, representing a patent conflict or court ruling in an engineering context.

Delhi High Court grants patent injunction to Aquestia, stopping Automat from selling Hydromat valves over suspected patent infringement.