judicial review | Intellepedia

‘Controller under an obligation to inform inventor’ says Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stressed that patent Controllers are obliged to provide detailed reasoning for refusals, enabling inventors to understand the grounds for rejection. The Court set aside two refusal orders and ordered fresh consideration, reinforcing the importance of transparency and due process in Indian patent law.

The Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the order

The Delhi High Court refused to remove trademark officers’ names from an order regarding delayed opposition filings. The judgment emphasises the need for transparency and adherence to limitation periods in trademark matters.

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.

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.

Censoring The Intelligent Film Spectator

This post explores whether film censorship in India remains justified, given the evolution of the film spectator’s intelligence and access to information. It advocates for a shift in the Censor Board’s role, focusing on certification rather than pre-censorship.