Indian Patents Act | Intellepedia

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.

Vitiation of IPAB and Beyond – Changes to the Indian Patents Act

The abolition of the IPAB has shifted appellate and adjudicatory functions under the Indian Patents Act to the High Courts. This post analyses the significant legal changes, outlining the expanded role of Indian High Courts in patent matters after the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021.

Delhi High Court Patent Rules: Comments

This article provides analytical comments on the draft Delhi High Court Patent Rules 2020, focusing on proposed amendments and their legal justification. The discussion addresses critical procedural definitions for patent suits in India.

Patentability Requirements in India

This post explores the five patentability requirements under Indian law, including subject matter, novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, and specification. It discusses statutory provisions, key case law, and practical considerations in patent grant and validity assessments.

Patent Filing Essentials

This post summarises the key requirements for filing a patent in India, including eligibility, timing, and procedural steps. It highlights essential documents and legal considerations for inventors seeking patent protection.

Permission to File a Patent Application Outside India

Indian residents must secure permission from the Patent Office before filing a patent application outside India. Section 39 of the Indian Patents Act outlines the process and consequences of non-compliance. This post details the requirements and legal implications for inventors.

Denial of Opportunity to be Heard Violates Principle of Natural Justice

The IPAB set aside a patent rejection after finding that Ericsson was denied a proper opportunity to be heard. The decision reaffirms that natural justice is central to patent proceedings and applicants’ rights cannot be overlooked.

Crossing the Rubicon: A Fork in the Road – Go Right or Left?

The Supreme Court has clarified that parties cannot pursue both revocation and counter claim remedies simultaneously for the same patent under Indian law. This decision aims to prevent multiple proceedings on identical issues before different forums.

Keeping Secrets from the Patent Office? Think Again!

Section 8 of the Indian Patents Act mandates full disclosure of foreign patent filings by applicants. Failing to comply may result in opposition or patent revocation. This post provides a comparative legal analysis and discusses the consequences of non-disclosure.

Generication of Public Interest

This article explores how public interest has guided Indian patent law, often supporting generic drug companies over innovators. It argues for a balanced approach to public interest that considers both affordability and pharmaceutical innovation.