Indian Patent Law | Intellepedia

Court Cranks the Clock Back on Opposed Crankshaft Patent Refusal

The Madras High Court set aside the refusal of an opposed piston engine patent, citing insufficient analysis of inventive features. The case underscores the need for detailed examination of claim amendments and inventive step in Indian patent proceedings.

Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrack

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of a patent application for a portable vehicle management system, citing lack of inventive step over prior art. This case highlights the application of key Indian patent law principles on non-obviousness and inventive step, particularly regarding mosaicing and hindsight bias.

Patent examination should not kill the scientific temper of an inventor

The Madras High Court set aside the rejection of Industeel France’s patent application, stressing the need for fair and consistent patent examination. The judgment highlights the importance of protecting inventors’ scientific temper and ensuring time-bound decisions under Indian patent law.

New claims, Old claims, and Claim Amendments: Section 59 of the Patents Act

This post examines a Madras High Court ruling on Section 59 of the Patents Act regarding patent claim amendments. The Court clarified procedural requirements and applicant rights during the patent examination process in India.

Monoclonal antibodies and Patents – How the Madras High Court interpreted Section 3(c)

The Madras High Court clarified the interpretation of Section 3c regarding patent eligibility of monoclonal antibodies in India. The Court held that synthetic antibodies may be patentable if they demonstrate novelty or technical advancement.

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.