Inventive Step | Intellepedia

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

The Madras High Court has overturned the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a soluble foaming composition patent, highlighting procedural lapses in considering applicant submissions. The matter will now be reconsidered by another patent officer within four months.

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

The Madras High Court has set aside several patent refusal orders, highlighting the need for proper reasoning and adherence to legal procedures. These judgments clarify essential aspects of patentability assessment and reinforce procedural fairness in Indian patent law.

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

The Madras High Court has set aside a patent refusal for an image construction apparatus, citing insufficient reasoning under Section 3(k) and inventive step. The Court remanded the matter for reconsideration, highlighting the importance of well-reasoned decisions in patent law.

Refusal of a patent application based on prior art not cited in hearing notice set aside by the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal where the Controller relied on prior art not cited in the hearing notice. The decision underscores the importance of fair opportunity and proper analysis in patent proceedings in India.

Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court criticised the Controller of Patents for a superficial inventive step analysis in a recent patent refusal, emphasising the need for rigorous and well-reasoned assessments. The Court has directed a fresh hearing, highlighting the standards required under Indian patent law.

Reversal of unreasoned and invalid Patent refusals based on Section 3(d), Novelty, and Inventive Step

This post reviews three High Court decisions reversing unreasoned patent refusals in India, focusing on Section 3(d), novelty, and inventive step. The courts stressed the need for considering applicant submissions and proper reasoning in refusal orders.

Madras High Court Rulings on Patent Application Refusals

Recent Madras High Court rulings have clarified the standards for refusing patent applications in India. The Court emphasized the need for clear, detailed reasoning in refusals, ensuring transparency and fairness in the patent examination process.

Could an advanced Chat GPT be ‘the person skilled in the art’ for patent prosecution?

This article examines whether an advanced ChatGPT could fulfil the role of ‘person skilled in the art’ for patent prosecution in India. It analyses the legal definition and the potential for AI to support or transform patent examination.

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court set aside a Patent Office order rejecting Gogoro Inc’s application for lack of inventive step, citing inadequate reasoning. The case was remanded for proper analysis under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.

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.