Inventive Step | Intellepedia

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.

The Chemtura Case – Assent from US’ BPAI, but Dissent from India’s IPAB

The Chemtura case highlights IPAB’s approach to inventive step and patent revocation in contrast with the US BPAI’s grant. The decision underscores the significance of precise drafting and timely disclosure under Indian patent law.

Inventive Step of an Invention Analysed

This post examines the Green Cross Holdings case, where the Indian IPAB upheld the rejection of a patent application for lacking inventive step. The analysis highlights legal standards of obviousness and inventive step under Indian patent law, emphasizing the importance of prior art disclosure.

Inventive Step – Technical Advance

The post analyses an IPAB decision on the patentability of a chaos theoretical exponent value calculation system under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act. It discusses the distinction between technical advance and excluded subject matter in the context of inventive step.