Tag: Inventive Step

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

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

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) must clearly and unambiguously articulate objections to patent applications. This case involved Microsoft’s patent application for “Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves,” which was rejected by the IPO for lacking inventive step and violating disclosure requirements. The Court found the IPO’s objections to be ambiguous and procedurally irregular, thereby stressing on fair hearings and proper communication during the patent examination process.

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

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft. Featured image for PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that rejected Microsoft’s patent application for “Message Communication of Sensor and other Data.” The Court clarified that the “person skilled in the art” (PSITA) used to assess the inventive step is not omniscient and cannot be presumed to possess the inventive solution claimed in the patent.

Read more about PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside Featured image for Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Protein-free foaming innovation revived! Madras High Court overturns patent refusal due to Controller’s failure to address key arguments and consider crucial differences from prior art. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough analysis and considering applicant submissions in patent decisions.

Read more about Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court Featured image for Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court supports three inventions by overturning three patent refusals on grounds of Lack of valid grounds (RTA-408 case), failure to consider inventive features (fluidized bed boiler case) and procedural error (fuel temperature control case).

Read more about Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court Featured image for Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court overturned patent refusal for “Image Construction Apparatus” due to insufficient reasoning from the Controller regarding inventive step and Section 3(k). The Court criticized failure to consider the fact that the European Patent Office (EPO) had granted a patent based on the same prior art references and the disregard to analyze technical aspects per Section 3(k).

Read more about Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

Can Combining Contrivances Give Rise to Inventive Step? – An IPAB Case Note

Can Combining Contrivances Give Rise to Inventive Step? – An IPAB Case Note Featured image for Can Combining Contrivances Give Rise to Inventive Step? – An IPAB Case Note

This post was published on 24th January, 2014.   Eaton Electric BV Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) Decision - Mp....

Read more about Can Combining Contrivances Give Rise to Inventive Step? – An IPAB Case Note

Patentability and Section 3(d), History of Patent Law in India, Patentability of Imatinib Masylate in Beta Crystalline Form – Novartis Case Abridged by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala

Patentability and Section 3(d), History of Patent Law in India, Patentability of Imatinib Masylate in Beta Crystalline Form – Novartis Case Abridged by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala Featured image for Patentability and Section 3(d), History of Patent Law in India, Patentability of Imatinib Masylate in Beta Crystalline Form – Novartis Case Abridged by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala

This abridged version of the Novartis case was used by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala to explain to the students of UPES, the patentability requirements under the...

Read more about Patentability and Section 3(d), History of Patent Law in India, Patentability of Imatinib Masylate in Beta Crystalline Form – Novartis Case Abridged by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala