In the case of Stromag GmbH vs. Controller General of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that patent refusal orders must contain detailed reasoning. A single-line dismissal, the court said, does not meet the legal standards of a quasi-judicial function and is unsustainable.
Read more about Patent Refusal Cannot Be a Single Line: Calcutta High Court Calls for Reasoned OrdersTag: Indian Patent Law
Infrared-Based Biomolecule Detection is Not excluded under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act: Delhi HC
In the case of EMD Millipore Corporation vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court held that a non-invasive method for analysing biomolecules is not excluded from patentability under Section 3(i). The Court allowed the applicant to revert to earlier claims and upheld the right to amend claims in appeal.
Read more about Infrared-Based Biomolecule Detection is Not excluded under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act: Delhi HCCalcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 3(h) in Patent Law: Base SE v. Controller of Patents
In Base SE v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that scientific and technical inventions addressing agricultural problems are not excluded under Section 3(h). It also clarified that partial grant of patent claims is not permitted under Indian patent law.
Read more about Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 3(h) in Patent Law: Base SE v. Controller of PatentsSaint-Gobain Patent Rejection: Delhi HC Finds No Inventive Step in Glass Coating Claim
Delhi HC upholds Saint-Gobain patent rejection, ruling that the glass coating claim lacked inventive step and failed to show technical advancement.
Read more about Saint-Gobain Patent Rejection: Delhi HC Finds No Inventive Step in Glass Coating ClaimOld Wine in New Bottle: Distillery Waste Patent Denied
Delhi HC affirms rejection of a patent on ZLD process from distillery waste, citing lack of inventive step and application of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.
Read more about Old Wine in New Bottle: Distillery Waste Patent DeniedNo Territorial Jurisdiction, No Quia Timet Relief: Lessons from a Patent Case
In the case of Helsinn Healthcare SA vs AET Laboratories, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain a patent infringement action filed in anticipation of future infringement. The Court examined the territorial reach of Indian courts in web-based patent matters and reaffirmed the principles required to sustain quia timet actions.
Read more about No Territorial Jurisdiction, No Quia Timet Relief: Lessons from a Patent CaseCRI Patentability Affirmed: Madras High Court Rules in Favor of Syngene
Madras HC upholds CRI patentability in Syngene’s case, ruling novel hardware isn’t a prerequisite for protection under Section 3(k).
Read more about CRI Patentability Affirmed: Madras High Court Rules in Favor of SyngeneNon-Disclosure of Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Natural Justice, Rules Delhi High Court
In Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court emphasized procedural fairness and ruled that the non-disclosure of prior art in a hearing notice constitutes a breach of natural justice. The Court remanded the case for fresh evaluation.
Read more about Non-Disclosure of Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Natural Justice, Rules Delhi High CourtPharmacyclics Divisional Patent Application Upheld by Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court upholds Pharmacyclics divisional patent application for ibrutinib-anti-CD20 therapy, interpreting Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Read more about Pharmacyclics Divisional Patent Application Upheld by Calcutta High CourtAmgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court
Madras High Court backs Amgen on lyophilized peptibody formulations, rejecting Section 3(d), 3(e) and inventive step objections. Grant directed, with claims narrowed to supported sequences.
Read more about Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court