Indian Patent Law | Intellepedia

Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds

The Delhi High Court has reiterated the need for transparency in patent refusal orders, stating that clear grounds must be provided. The judgment highlights the importance of detailed reasoning and independent assessment of each claim in patent applications.

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX

The Delhi High Court’s analysis in Ericsson vs. Lava addresses the novelty and inventive step of key standard essential patents for 3G and EDGE technology. This post summarises the court’s findings on the technical advancements and legal standards applied in evaluating Ericsson’s patents, maintaining a clear and factual legal perspective.

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII

This article provides a detailed analysis of the novelty and inventive step of Ericsson’s AMR patents as examined in Ericsson Vs. Lava. The Delhi High Court’s findings illustrate how Indian patent law standards are applied to complex telecommunication inventions.

A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

The Delhi High Court analysed the validity of eight Ericsson patents under Section 3(k), following Lava’s challenge. Except for the first patent, the Court upheld the remaining patents, finding them to involve technical advancements beyond mere algorithms or mathematical methods.

Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI

The Delhi High Court in Ericsson vs Lava clarified that revocation of a patent on the ground of misrepresentation requires strong, clear evidence of intentional deceit. In this case, Lava failed to meet the legal threshold, resulting in rejection of its revocation claim.

Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

This post discusses how the Delhi High Court assessed infringement of standard essential patents in Ericsson v. Lava, evaluating claim charts and the two-step infringement test. The court’s structured approach clarifies key aspects of SEP litigation in India.

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3

This post discusses patent hold up, royalty stacking, and hold out in the context of the Ericsson v Lava dispute. The analysis highlights the Court’s reliance on evidence while addressing FRAND licensing arguments and SEP enforcement in India.

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

This post analyses the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of Section 3(k) in Ericsson vs Lava, focusing on the patentability of algorithms and computer programs in India. It clarifies the assessment criteria for such inventions and the legislative intent behind software patentability.

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ericsson vs. Lava clarifies major legal standards for standard essential patents, FRAND royalties, and infringement in India. This case note examines the Court’s findings on patent validity, damages, and licensing practices in the telecom sector.

All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents, a recent decision by Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently addressed the interplay between the all elements rule and the doctrine of equivalents in a patent dispute over brick-making machines. The Court granted interim relief, affirming a nuanced approach to patent claim analysis and infringement in Indian law.