Inventive Step | Intellepedia

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.

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.