Indian Patent Law | Intellepedia

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.

Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal order under section 15 of the Patents Act, directing a de novo reconsideration. The case underscores the need for reasoned decisions in Indian patent law proceedings.

Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 come into effect, significant changes introduced.

The Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 bring notable procedural changes to the Indian patent system, including shorter timelines, new forms, and updated requirements. These amendments aim to simplify processes and enhance compliance for patent applicants and patentees.

Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma reviews crucial aspects of patent law, including credible challenge and the distinction between patent coverage and disclosure. The Court granted an interim injunction to Kudos Pharma, reinforcing core principles of Indian patent jurisprudence.

Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.

The Delhi High Court has stressed the necessity for detailed reasoning in patent refusal decisions. In this case, the absence of specific analysis and clarity in rejecting a divisional application led to the order being set aside and remanded for reconsideration.

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that objections on insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and precise. Procedural lapses by the Indian patent office can undermine the fairness of the patent examination process.