Indian Patents Act | Intellepedia

Patent Claim Amendments – Court’s observation of amendments to systems, methods and use claims

Illustration of a peaceful, smiling monk in orange robes sitting cross-legged with eyes closed, surrounded by a yellow halo, under the curved text "It’s all about accepting the change" on a peach background.

The Calcutta High Court remanded a patent application back to the Controller of Patents, citing infrimities in evaluating claim amendments. The Court stressed that mere change in claim types—method to system—without analyzing technical substance cannot justify rejection under Section 59 of the Indian Patents Act.

AbbVie’s Patent Refusal Upheld over Impermissible Shift from Treatment to Product Claims

3D rendering of a blue virus particle surrounded by yellow antibodies, illustrating an immune response at the microscopic level

The Delhi High Court has dismissed AbbVie’s appeal regarding the refusal of their patent application for an anti-cMet antibody-drug conjugate. The court found the proposed amendments exceeded permissible scope under the Indian Patents Act.

Court Affirms Controller’s Refusal: Invention deemed obvious to a person skilled in the art

Image of a green board with the text "Isn't it obvious?" written in Chalk

The Madras High Court dismissed Navya Network Inc.’s appeal against the Patent Controller’s refusal, ruling that the claimed invention was obvious to a person skilled in the art. The judgment clarifies the approach to inventive step and non-patentability under Indian patent law, reinforcing standards for algorithm and method claims.

When Delay Becomes Denial: Calcutta High Court Overturns Patent Rejection

The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in BASF SE v. Joint Controller of Patents warrants attention for multiple reasons, particularly as it addresses...

Regents’ Patent on Live Salmonella Vaccine Fails to Meet Disclosure Requirements, Court Rules

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the Controller of Patents' decision to reject an appeal filed by the Regents of the University of California (hereafter...

Frivolous inventions and abstract theories – Delhi High Court refuses patent appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application due to lack of novelty and a significant procedural delay of 701 days. The appellants, who had filed a patent application for black-colored wearables with claimed effects on human energy, failed to provide scientific evidence or technical merit. The court upheld the Indian Patent Office’s decision, emphasizing that abstract ideas are not patentable and reaffirming the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines for appeals.

Madras High Court Upholds Patent Validity in Embio Limited vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

The Madras High Court affirmed the validity of Malladi Drugs’ patent for chiral beta-amino alcohols, highlighting the invention’s novelty and inventive step. The judgment clarifies key principles on patent revocation and the definition of a “person interested” under Indian patent law.

‘Controller under an obligation to inform inventor’ says Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stressed that patent Controllers are obliged to provide detailed reasoning for refusals, enabling inventors to understand the grounds for rejection. The Court set aside two refusal orders and ordered fresh consideration, reinforcing the importance of transparency and due process in Indian patent law.

Court criticizes Patent Office for using outdated CRI Guidelines

The Madras High Court condemned the Patent Office’s reliance on outdated CRI guidelines in Microsoft’s patent application case, highlighting the significance of technical effect in computer related inventions. The court allowed the appeal and directed a new evaluation.

Method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’ is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ruled that a method of producing protein enriched blood serum is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The Court set aside the refusal and directed the Patent Office to reconsider the application after a fresh hearing.