Madras HC upholds CRI patentability in Syngene’s case, ruling novel hardware isn’t a prerequisite for protection under Section 3(k).
Read more about CRI Patentability Affirmed: Madras High Court Rules in Favor of SyngeneTag: Inventive Step
Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court
Madras High Court backs Amgen on lyophilized peptibody formulations, rejecting Section 3(d), 3(e) and inventive step objections. Grant directed, with claims narrowed to supported sequences.
Read more about Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High CourtPatent Application for System to Locate Users on P2P Networks Refused under Section 3(k)
The Delhi High Court has upheld the refusal of a patent application for a system that locates users on peer-to-peer networks. The Court ruled that the invention was a computer program per se, excluded from patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.
Read more about Patent Application for System to Locate Users on P2P Networks Refused under Section 3(k)Coca-Cola Patent Appeal: Delhi HC Emphasizes Need for Reasoned Inventive Step Analysis
Delhi HC overturned Coca-Cola’s patent refusal, stressing the need for detailed inventive step analysis in patent decisions.
Read more about Coca-Cola Patent Appeal: Delhi HC Emphasizes Need for Reasoned Inventive Step AnalysisZiegler-Natta Catalyst Patent Rejection Upheld for Lack of Inventive Step
The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of Lummus Novolen’s patent for a Ziegler-Natta catalyst, citing lack of inventive step and similarity to prior art. Read the key observations and legal reasoning.
Read more about Ziegler-Natta Catalyst Patent Rejection Upheld for Lack of Inventive StepAnti-Cancer Patent Refusal Set Aside for Not Identifying ‘Known Substance’
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.
Read more about Anti-Cancer Patent Refusal Set Aside for Not Identifying ‘Known Substance’Not Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal Formulation
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.
Read more about Not Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal FormulationPatent on Carbon Capture Process freed from IPO refusal
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.
Read more about Patent on Carbon Capture Process freed from IPO refusalFrom Algorithms To AI: Patentability Under The 2025 CRI Draft Guidelines
Featured image for article: 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.
Read more about From Algorithms To AI: Patentability Under The 2025 CRI Draft GuidelinesReasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates
Featured image for article: 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.
Read more about Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates