Inventive Step | Intellepedia

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

The Delhi High Court’s decision highlights the requirement for an objective inventive step assessment anchored in the knowledge of a person skilled in the art at the priority date. The ruling emphasises the need for detailed analysis and avoidance of hindsight in patent examinations.

Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s Refusal

The Madras High Court has reversed the Patent Office’s rejection of Novozymes’ patent for enzyme granules in animal feed, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning in refusal orders. The decision clarifies the application of inventive step and Section 3d in Indian patent law.

Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds

The Delhi High Court has reiterated the need for transparency in patent refusal orders, stating that clear grounds must be provided. The judgment highlights the importance of detailed reasoning and independent assessment of each claim in patent applications.

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

The Delhi High Court’s analysis in Ericsson vs. Lava addresses the novelty and inventive step of key standard essential patents for 3G and EDGE technology. This post summarises the court’s findings on the technical advancements and legal standards applied in evaluating Ericsson’s patents, maintaining a clear and factual legal perspective.

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII

This article provides a detailed analysis of the novelty and inventive step of Ericsson’s AMR patents as examined in Ericsson Vs. Lava. The Delhi High Court’s findings illustrate how Indian patent law standards are applied to complex telecommunication inventions.

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

The Delhi High Court dismissed Google’s appeal against the rejection of its patent application, finding no inventive step over prior art. A fine of Rs.1 lakh was also imposed on Google for incorrect disclosure regarding its European patent application.

Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal, holding that applications must be assessed with thorough reasoning under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The judgment stresses the need for detailed analysis of inventive step and legal compliance in patent rejections.

Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.

The Delhi High Court has stressed the necessity for detailed reasoning in patent refusal decisions. In this case, the absence of specific analysis and clarity in rejecting a divisional application led to the order being set aside and remanded for reconsideration.

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

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that objections on insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and precise. Procedural lapses by the Indian patent office can undermine the fairness of the patent examination process.

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

The Madras High Court has overturned the refusal of Microsoft’s patent application, clarifying the correct approach to assessing inventive step and the PSITA standard under Indian law. The decision highlights the need for a nuanced analysis of prior art and patent claims.