Indian Patent Law | Intellepedia

Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld an appeal filed by BTS Research International Pty Ltd (“BTS”) challenging the rejection by the Assistant...

From Algorithms To AI: Patentability Under The 2025 CRI Draft Guidelines

The 2025 Draft CRI Guidelines issued by the Indian Patent Office refine the criteria for patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), emphasizing technical effect, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, and proper claim drafting for AI, blockchain, and emerging technologies.

Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)

The Delhi High Court, in Syngenta Crop Protection AG vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, examined the rejection of an Indian patent application under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Court ruled that plant treatment methods are distinct from agricultural processes, referring to the 2003 amendment to Section 3(i), and remanded the case for fresh examination with amended claims.

Evaluation of Technical Advancement and Compliance with CRI Guidelines under Indian Patent Law

The Madras High Court allowed Idemia Identity & Security France’s appeal, setting aside a refusal order under Section 3(k) for a cryptography patent. The Court ruled the order as a non-speaking one and in violation of natural justice. It directed fresh consideration of the matter, emphasizing technical contributions and adherence to CRI and European guidelines.

Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History

The Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction in a patent dispute over a fuel cap, citing ambiguous claims and prosecution history. The judgment highlights the need for precise claim drafting and careful interpretation in patent litigation.

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The Delhi High Court restored a patent application that was deemed withdrawn after a missed Form 18 deadline caused by agent negligence.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.