Indian Patent Act | Intellepedia

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.

Blackberry blacks out in case relating to patentability of algorithmic processes

This article analyzes India’s legal stance on the patentability of algorithmic processes under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Focusing on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Blackberry Limited vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the post explores key arguments, legal precedents, and implications for software patents in India.

Computer Programs with Technical Effect such as enhancing speed and efficiency are patentable, reiterates the Delhi High Court

In an appeal decision, the Delhi High Court recently overturned the rejection of two patent applications filed by Ab Initio Technology LLC, concerning data processing...

Patent Publication In India

The post provides a thorough examination of patent publication procedures in India under the Patent Act. It covers standard and early publication, legal effects, and the role of official gazettes, maintaining a clear and analytical approach.

AvishCar – The Flying Maruti 800

This post discusses the AvishCar, a flying Maruti 800 displayed at AeroIndia 2011, with a focus on patent law and intellectual property protection strategies. It analyses the legal provisions and practical implications under the Indian Patent Act, 1970.

A Conduit for INVALID PATENTS – Section 13(1)(b)

Section 13(1)(b) of the Indian Patent Act may inadvertently allow for the grant of invalid patents by restricting prior art consideration to only the claims of earlier Indian applications. A reconsideration of this provision is suggested to ensure more robust patent examination and to achieve the legislative intent of preventing invalid patents.

Patenting a Food Recipe?

This post analyses the patentability of food recipes in India, focusing on exclusions under section 3 of the Indian Patent Act. It explores when a food recipe may qualify for patent protection and provides relevant examples from patent classification systems.

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs. Hindustan Metal Industries

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries established the standard for inventive step and novelty in Indian patent law. The Supreme Court’s reasoning remains central to assessing patentability in India.

Shall We Amend the Claims During Litigation?- AGC Flat Glass Europe Sa vs Anand Mahajan And Ors

The post discusses whether patent claim amendments should be permitted during litigation, highlighting the Delhi High Court’s approach in the AGC Flat Glass case. It critically evaluates the legal and procedural implications of such amendments within the Indian patent system.

Mock Opposition Proceedings – A mock problem by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala at UPES School of Law

This mock problem examines a patent opposition proceeding under Indian law, involving claims of wrongful obtainment and lack of inventive step. It highlights core issues faced in patent litigation and legal standing in opposition cases.