Indian Patent Law | Intellepedia

Patent on Carbon Capture Process freed from IPO refusal

A dark carbon footprint symbol is imprinted on a vibrant green grass background, representing the capture of carbon by nature.

The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of a patent on a carbon capture process, citing the Patent Office’s failure to adequately justify its decision and its reliance on new, unaddressed grounds. The Court remanded the case for a fresh hearing with a focus on technical and economic evaluations.

Akebia’s patent for Anemia therapy gets fresh blood from Court

Illustration featuring the headline “Court infuses fresh blood into Patent for Anemia Therapy” alongside an image of a blood bag with a red tube.

In a recent case the Madras High Court upheld Akebia Therapeutics’ appeal on its anaemia treatment patent, interpreting Section 59 to allow claim amendments from treatment methods to compositions, as long as they’re disclosed in the original application. The case underscores the significance of well-documented specifications in pharmaceutical patents.

Blackberry’s Patent Refusal Set Aside by Delhi High Court

City skyline at night with glowing Wi-Fi symbols and connection lines, representing wireless communication and smart city connectivity

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Indian Patent Office’s refusal of Blackberry’s communication patent application. Citing a lack of reasoning and violation of natural justice principles, the Court directed a fresh evaluation of the amendments and remaining objections under the Patents Act.

Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld an appeal filed by BTS Research International Pty Ltd (“BTS”) challenging the rejection by the Assistant...

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.

Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)

The Delhi High Court, in Syngenta Crop Protection AG vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, examined the rejection of an Indian patent application under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Court ruled that plant treatment methods are distinct from agricultural processes, referring to the 2003 amendment to Section 3(i), and remanded the case for fresh examination with amended claims.

Evaluation of Technical Advancement and Compliance with CRI Guidelines under Indian Patent Law

The Madras High Court allowed Idemia Identity & Security France’s appeal, setting aside a refusal order under Section 3(k) for a cryptography patent. The Court ruled the order as a non-speaking one and in violation of natural justice. It directed fresh consideration of the matter, emphasizing technical contributions and adherence to CRI and European guidelines.

Madras High Court Overturns Patent Refusal under section 3(d), Reiterates Importance of Reasoned Orders and Natural Justice

The Madras High Court overturned the Controller’s refusal of Intervet International’s patent application, underscoring the importance of natural justice and reasoned orders in patent proceedings. The case involved complex issues under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, with the Court remanding the matter for reconsideration.

Patent examination should not kill the scientific temper of an inventor

The Madras High Court criticized inconsistent patent examination practices in Industeel France’s case, emphasizing the need for a fair and thorough evaluation process. The court ordered a de novo examination by a different Controller and stressed the importance of maintaining scientific temper.

New claims, Old claims, and Claim Amendments: Section 59 of the Patents Act

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court clarified that amending claims in a patent application does not imply abandonment of earlier claims. The court directed that decisions should be based on the amended claims. This analysis was part of Genomatica Inc. vs Controller of Patents case.