Patents | Intellepedia

Guidelines for Writing an Abstract from the Indian Patent Office

This post analyses the Indian Patent Office’s abstract guidelines, referencing the Patent Act and Rules. It explains the mandatory components, verification process, and the significance of accurate abstracts in patent searches. The discussion underscores recent procedural changes for enhanced clarity and compliance.

SIPP scheme, UGC asks Universities to provide IPR as an optional subject, NASA to License Patent Portfolio, Treadmill patent infringement and more

This weekly update covers Indian patent statistics, SIPP scheme developments, UGC’s push for IPR education, and notable cases such as NASA’s patent licensing and treadmill patent disputes. The analysis offers clear, factual insights into current trends and legal updates in the intellectual property landscape.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

The Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty held that human-made microorganisms are patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The case clarified that patent eligibility depends on human ingenuity rather than the living or nonliving status of the invention.

Apache License, Version 2.0

The Apache License Version 2.0 provides structured rights and obligations for software distribution and modification in India. It addresses copyright, patent rights, liability, and trademark use with a clear legal framework.

Rotec Indus. v. Mitsubishi Gajarsa Corp., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

The Rotec v Mitsubishi case examines alleged patent infringement involving a US-patented conveyor system for the Three Gorges Dam project. The Federal Circuit clarified the interpretation of offers to sell and the scope of liability under section 271 of US patent law, ultimately finding no infringement.

State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Sign. Fin. Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

This post discusses State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, a pivotal case on the patentability of data processing systems and business methods under US law. The decision clarifies the treatment of mathematical algorithms and business methods in patent eligibility analysis.

Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156 (1892)

Topliff v Topliff examines the legal criteria for patent reissue, focusing on scope, inadvertence, and timeliness. The court upheld the second reissue, emphasizing the need for diligence and conformity to original invention boundaries.

Inamed Vs Lubomyr Kuzmak, 249 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

This post reviews the Inamed Vs Lubomyr Kuzmak case, focusing on personal jurisdiction in California for patent disputes. The analysis highlights how minimum contacts and due process requirements were applied in this Federal Circuit decision.

Rosaire v. Baroid Sales, 218 F.2d 72 (1955)

Rosaire v. Baroid Sales examines whether prior public experiments can invalidate a patent under Section 102(a). The judgment clarifies that successful, public use of a method by others before the patent application constitutes prior knowledge, resulting in patent invalidation.

Indian patent statistics, Interesting inventions, Nestle’s Patent Infringement Dispute, Apple versus Qualcomm and more

This post analyses Indian patent statistics, recent interesting inventions, and key patent disputes involving Nestlé and Apple. It provides an objective overview of patent publications, grants, and legal developments relevant to intellectual property in India.