Patents | Intellepedia

Revocation is Distinct from Invalidity Defence and Survives Patent Expiry, rules Delhi High Court

Gavel, law books, and justice scale beside the text "Revocation Is Distinct from Invalidity Defence and Survives Patent Expiry, Rules Delhi High Court" on a dark blue background.

The Delhi High Court held that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act is distinct from an invalidity defence under Section 107 and remains valid post-patent expiry. The Court emphasized the broader legal impact of revocation, affirming its maintainability even when the patent has lapsed.

Court Affirms Controller’s Refusal: Invention deemed obvious to a person skilled in the art

Image of a green board with the text "Isn't it obvious?" written in Chalk

The Madras High Court dismissed Navya Network Inc.’s appeal against the Patent Controller’s refusal, ruling that the claimed invention was obvious to a person skilled in the art. The judgment clarifies the approach to inventive step and non-patentability under Indian patent law, reinforcing standards for algorithm and method claims.

Can an Oversight by a Patent Agent Be a Ground for Abandoned Patent Application Revival?

Can Oversight by Patent Agents Be Grounds for Patent Application Revival?

Delhi High Court restores Ciena’s patent after agent oversight, affirming that patent application revival is possible under bona fide errors. Recognizing the global pursuit and lack of intent to abandon, the Court set aside the IPO’s order and allowed a fresh response to the FER.

Indian Patent Term Extension Rejected, Section 53 Constitutionally Upheld

Patent Term – Section 53 Challenge The appellants, Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha and another, acquired a patent for a “fuel cell system and an...

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.