Indian Patent Law | Intellepedia

Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Novartis’s Ceritinib patent against Natco’s challenge, addressing divisional application issues and allegations of suppression. The injunction against Natco remains in force, reinforcing the enforceability of Novartis’s patent rights.

Court restores patent application despite missed deadline to file request for examination

The Delhi High Court restored a patent application that was deemed withdrawn after a missed Form 18 deadline caused by agent negligence. The Court held that applicants should not be penalised for their representative’s errors, affirming the applicant’s diligent intent.

Delhi High Court Orders Restoration of Patent Lapsed Due to Communication Error of the Patent Office

The Delhi High Court ordered restoration of a lapsed patent after finding that the Patent Office’s communication error led to non-payment of renewal fees. The judgment highlights the responsibility of authorities to ensure proper notification in patent matters.

Methods for Antibody Production in Genetically Modified Animals are Patentable; they are not covered under Section 3(i) Exclusion

The Madras High Court ruled that methods for producing antibodies in genetically modified animals are patentable under Indian law and are not excluded by Section 3(i). This decision clarifies the scope of patent eligibility for biotechnological inventions involving animal models.

Claim Amendments within the Scope of Patent Specification are Permissible, the Delhi High Court reiterates

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that claim amendments falling within the scope of the original patent specification are permissible under Indian law. The judgment provides clarity on Section 59(1) of the Patents Act and sets important precedent for future patent amendment cases.

Blackberry blacks out in case relating to patentability of algorithmic processes

The Delhi High Court dismissed Blackberry’s appeal against refusal of its patent application, holding that algorithmic processes remain excluded from patent protection under Indian law. The decision clarifies the interpretation of Section 3k with respect to software and computer-related inventions.

Section 3(j), Essentially biological processes and human intervention

The Madras High Court considered whether human intervention in a plant breeding method excluded it from section 3(j) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded to the Patent Office, underlining the importance of clear reasoning in patent refusals involving essentially biological processes.

Unreasoned Post Grant Opposition Decision Set Aside by the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court set aside a post grant opposition decision in a patent dispute for inadequate reasoning and lack of independent analysis. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration before a different officer to uphold procedural fairness.

Green Cross Crosses court’s bridge to win appeal

The Madras High Court set aside the patent refusal order against Green Cross, highlighting errors in the assessment of inventive step and technical disclosure. The case has been remanded for fresh examination within four months, with directions to provide a hearing to Green Cross.

Clarifying Product-by-Process Patent Claims in India – West Bengal Chemicals v. GTZ

The Calcutta High Court has clarified the standards for product-by-process patent claims in India, focusing on the necessity of expert evidence in infringement cases. The decision in West Bengal Chemicals v. GTZ provides important guidance for pharmaceutical patent litigation.