Indian Patent Law | Intellepedia

Section 3(i) Rejection Set Aside: Court Clarifies Scope of Pharmaceutical Patent Claims

Banner image showing a human brain against a blue molecular/network background, with overlaid text: “Section 3(i) Rejection Set Aside: Court Clarifies Scope of Pharmaceutical Patent Claims”.

The Delhi High Court reiterated that a properly drafted pharmaceutical composition claim cannot be dismissed as a “method of treatment” under Section 3(i), and has sent Medilabo’s neurodegenerative drug application back for a full, merits-based examination.

Comments and Suggestions on Patent Agent Code of Conduct and Patent Rules Draft

DPIIT’s publication of the draft rules and draft Code of Conduct has provided an opportunity for stakeholders to share their views on the future regulatory framework for patent agents. Patent agents at BananaIP Counsels have responded with detailed comments at general and specific levels, offering suggestions that aim to make the framework more practical and suitable for modern patent practice. Their submission seeks to contribute to a balanced ecosystem that enables the continued growth of innovation in India.

Madras High Court Overturns Patent Refusal for Ab Initio’s Data Lineage Invention

Illustration of judges giving thumbs up, overlaid on a futuristic data center with digital graphics representing data flow and technology

Madras High Court patent judgment backs Ab Initio’s data lineage invention, affirming novelty and inventive step in software patents.

Patent Refusal Cannot Be a Single Line: Calcutta High Court Calls for Reasoned Orders

Yellow road marking with bold black text reading “SINGLE LINE. DO NOT CROSS,” symbolizing the lack of reasoning in the Stromag GmbH patent refusal—a single-line decision that violated principles of natural justice.

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.

Infrared-Based Biomolecule Detection is Not excluded under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act: Delhi HC

Close-up of a metallic microscope lens projecting an infrared beam onto stylized chemical structures, with DNA-like strands and an “IR” graph on a dark background.

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.

Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 3(h) in Patent Law: Base SE v. Controller of Patents

Silhouette of a farmer spraying crops with pesticides on one side and a tractor on the other, with rows of crop plants in between, set against a green background.

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.

Saint-Gobain Patent Rejection: Delhi HC Finds No Inventive Step in Glass Coating Claim

Illustration of a judge holding a gavel beside broken glass shards, with the text "Delhi High Court Rejects Saint-Gobain's Patent Application on Glass Coatings Due to Lack of Inventive Step" on a pastel gradient background.

Delhi HC upholds Saint-Gobain patent rejection, ruling that the glass coating claim lacked inventive step and failed to show technical advancement.

Old Wine in New Bottle: Distillery Waste Patent Denied

Two bottles are placed side by side against a muted background. The bottle on the left is labeled "DISTILLERY WASTE" and contains a dark liquid, while the bottle on the right is labeled "PATENT DENIED" and also contains a similar dark liquid.

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.

No Territorial Jurisdiction, No Quia Timet Relief: Lessons from a Patent Case

A stylized laboratory scene showing a large blue capsule being constructed by steampunk-style mechanical arms, with sparks flying. A wooden sign next to the capsule reads "UNDER CONSTRUCTION," symbolizing a drug still in development. Various lab equipment is visible in the background.

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.

CRI Patentability Affirmed: Madras High Court Rules in Favor of Syngene

Illustration of a legal decision on computer-related inventions: code snippet on the left, legal gavel and scales on the right, with the title 'Madras HC Reboots Computer-Related Invention Refusal' in the center.

Madras HC upholds CRI patentability in Syngene’s case, ruling novel hardware isn’t a prerequisite for protection under Section 3(k).