201 articles
The Delhi High Court interprets Section 3(d) in the agrochemical context by extending efficacy beyond therapeutic effect to encompass stability, usability, and practical field performance.
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…
Madras High Court upheld the refusal of Steer Engineering’s divisional patent application, affirming lack of inventive step and overlap with the parent filing.
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 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…
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…
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.
Philips’ damages decree remains enforceable despite patent expiry, underscoring post-expiry enforcement rights under Indian IP law.
Delhi HC revives Trident’s patent application, citing flaws in the inventive step analysis of its air-rich yarn invention.
Delhi High Court restores Synertec’s patent application, ruling that agent error, not intent, caused the missed Form-18 deadline.