Indian Patent Law | Intellepedia

In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Telomerase Therapy Patent Barred under Section 3(i)

Banner image with a yellow geometric background, a light bulb illustration in the centre, and bold black text reading: In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Patent Refused under Section 3(i).

Labeling a test as ‘screening’ doesn’t make it patentable if it decides treatment. In Geron Corporation’s case, measuring telomere length to decide who receives telomerase therapy made the method a diagnostic process, blocking its patent.

Steering the divide: Steer Engineering’s divisional application denied by Court

A surreal scene of a car steering wheel standing upright in a narrow trench cut through a dry grassy field under a partly cloudy sky at sunset reflecting Steer Engineering’s failed patent appeal and the Court upholding the refusal of the divisional application.

Madras High Court upheld the refusal of Steer Engineering’s divisional patent application, affirming lack of inventive step and overlap with the parent filing.

No double riding! Court clarifies on patent revocation plea in case involving Philips

The image shows a Businessman balancing with one foot on each of two small wooden boats in open water, illustrating the attempt by one of the Parties in this case to seek patent revocation through multiple forums.

In the case of Versuni Holding B.V. Trading as Preethi v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, the patent holder had already sued for infringement before the Delhi High Court. The alleged infringer then filed a written statement there seeking invalidity and revocation of the patent, but also filed a separate revocation petition before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed that separate revocation petition and accepted the objection to its maintainability.

Mere Admixture or True Innovation? Crystal Crop’s Herbicidal Composition Fails the Synergy Test

A hand writing the word “SYNERGY” above the equation “1 + 1 > 2” in red marker, illustrating the concept that combined elements can produce a greater effect than their individual contributions.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a simple patent lesson: mixing known compounds will not do unless the mix delivers something unexpectedly better. In Crystal Crop, the claimed herbicidal composition failed that test.

Wanted Dead or Alive: Delhi High Court Holds Patent Revocation Survives Expiry and Section 107 Defence

Hand wearing a blue glove holding a small vial beside torn paper with the words “How to Survive,” symbolizing the Patent revocation case as decided by the Delhi High Court between Boehringer Ingelheim v. Controller

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents & Anr., the Delhi High Court addressed two important questions under the Patents Act: whether a revocation petition survives patent expiry, and whether it can continue after a Section 107 invalidity defence is raised in an infringement suit. The dispute arose from parallel revocation and infringement proceedings relating to Patent IN 243301 covering Linagliptin. The court held that revocation under Section 64 remains maintainable despite patent expiry and is not barred by a Section 107 defence.

Intellepedia’s Top Patent Articles of 2025: A Year in Review

A concise roundup of Intellepedia’s most impactful patent law articles of 2025, highlighting key judicial and Patent Office developments every IP practitioner should note.

Patent Expired. Damages Pending. Game Still On for Philips.

A futuristic courtroom setting with a lone judge seated at the bench, surrounded by abstract digital circuitry and tech schematics. A glowing red waveform symbolizing signal modulation runs horizontally across the scene. In the top right corner, a prominent “DAMAGES PENDING” stamp reinforces the theme of unresolved legal claims related to expired technology.

Philips’ damages decree remains enforceable despite patent expiry, underscoring post-expiry enforcement rights under Indian IP law.

Inventive Step Misjudged? Delhi HC Revives Trident’s Patent Application

Composite image showing a close-up of breathable maroon fabric, a cartoon panel of judges giving thumbs up, and colorful yarn balls representing air-rich yarn innovation in a legal patent context

Delhi HC revives Trident’s patent application, citing flaws in the inventive step analysis of its air-rich yarn invention.

Delhi High Court Grants Patent Application Restoration After Agent’s Error

Illustration of a courtroom with wooden benches and judge's bench; inset shows a cartoon man scratching his head with a lightbulb over it, symbolizing a sudden realization or mistake.

Delhi High Court restores Synertec’s patent application, ruling that agent error, not intent, caused the missed Form-18 deadline.

Can Claims Presumptively Inherit the Priority Date of a Provisional Application?

Close-up of a person circling a date on a calendar, symbolizing checking timelines

In Rallis India Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Others, the Madras High Court refused to assume that claims automatically inherit the priority date of a provisional, especially where the crucial EC formulation emerges only in the complete specification. The decision pushes the Patent Office to treat priority and prior art questions as matters for analysis, not default settings.