Inventive Step | Intellepedia

Anti-Cancer Patent Refusal Set Aside for Not Identifying ‘Known Substance’

A colourful collage of sticky notes spelling out the word "UNKNOWN" is placed against a green and black background, with a blurred field of black question marks in the backdrop symbolising ambiguity and lack of clarity.

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of an anti-cancer patent filed by Taiho Pharmaceutical. The Court highlighted that objections under Section 3(d) must explicitly state the “known substance” being referenced and directed a fresh hearing for proper assessment.

Not Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal Formulation

A red "REJECTED" stamp is shown on the left side, while a hand on the right holds a green reverse card from the Uno game, symbolizing a reversal of decision. The background is a soft peach color.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application filed by UPL Ltd., involving innovative fungicidal combinations. The Court found that the rejection order issued by the Controller lacked detailed reasoning and had procedural deficiencies, particularly concerning inventive step and treatment of experimental data.

Patent on Carbon Capture Process freed from IPO refusal

A dark carbon footprint symbol is imprinted on a vibrant green grass background, representing the capture of carbon by nature.

The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of a patent on a carbon capture process, citing the Patent Office’s failure to adequately justify its decision and its reliance on new, unaddressed grounds. The Court remanded the case for a fresh hearing with a focus on technical and economic evaluations.

From Algorithms To AI: Patentability Under The 2025 CRI Draft Guidelines

The 2025 Draft CRI Guidelines issued by the Indian Patent Office refine the criteria for patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), emphasizing technical effect, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, and proper claim drafting for AI, blockchain, and emerging technologies.

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.

Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent application for AI-integrated persona augmentation. The Court ruled that the invention lacked sufficient technical detail, inventive step, and patent-eligible subject matter under the Patents Act. It upheld the Controller’s decision, emphasizing the absence of tangible technical effects and clear disclosure requirements.

Cow dung lamp from Traditional Knowledge fails to light up patentability standards

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and traditional herbal leaves. The court upheld the decision, citing traditional knowledge and lack of inventive step.

Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrack

The Delhi High Court confirmed the refusal of Mahesh Gupta’s patent application for a Portable Vehicle Management System, citing the lack of an inventive step in light of prior arts D4 and D5. The decision underscores important principles of patentability, including mosaicing, hindsight bias, and the criteria for non-obviousness.

Inventive Step Assessment: To be Anchored in Knowledge of a Person with Ordinary Skill on the Priority Date

The Delhi High Court overturned the patent refusal for Alimentary Health’s probiotic formulation, emphasizing the need for an objective analysis of inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970. The Court criticized the Patent Office’s decision and highlighted the importance of avoiding hindsight bias in evaluating patent applications.

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

This post covers the intricate legal analysis of Ericsson’s patents essential for 3G and EDGE standards, dissecting novelty and inventive step aspects. Delve into the court’s scrutiny of prior art arguments and its decision on each patent’s validity.