Madras High Court | Intellepedia

Billing and Usage Data Invention Not a Business Method Under Section 3(k) of Patents Act

A smiling woman in an office uses billing software on her computer, with a large “PATENTED” seal displayed over the screen, signifying the billing software has received patent protection.

The Madras High Court has ruled in favour of Tekelec Inc., setting aside the rejection of its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act. The Court found the invention addressed a technical problem and did not constitute a business method, ordering a reassessment limited to software-related exclusions.

Patent on Carbon Capture Process freed from IPO refusal

A dark carbon footprint symbol is imprinted on a vibrant green grass background, representing the capture of carbon by nature.

The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of a patent on a carbon capture process, citing the Patent Office’s failure to adequately justify its decision and its reliance on new, unaddressed grounds. The Court remanded the case for a fresh hearing with a focus on technical and economic evaluations.

Akebia’s patent for Anemia therapy gets fresh blood from Court

Illustration featuring the headline “Court infuses fresh blood into Patent for Anemia Therapy” alongside an image of a blood bag with a red tube.

In a recent case the Madras High Court upheld Akebia Therapeutics’ appeal on its anaemia treatment patent, interpreting Section 59 to allow claim amendments from treatment methods to compositions, as long as they’re disclosed in the original application. The case underscores the significance of well-documented specifications in pharmaceutical patents.

Trademark Opposition Fails Without Territorial Use Evidence

Illustration with a curious face and large question mark, asking “Can you lose a trademark without using it everywhere?” on a blue-green gradient background.

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the registration of the ‘JAI HANUMAN’ trademark, underscoring the importance of territorial use evidence in opposition cases. Despite claiming prior use, the appellant failed to show usage in South India, leading to the Court affirming the Registry’s decision.

Patent Rejection for Vehicle Monitoring System reversed by Court

Illustration of a delivery rider on a red scooter emerging from a mobile phone screen with a GPS map, spotlighting the text 'TVS Patent finds its way in Court!' alongside a gavel icon, symbolizing legal proceedings.

The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TVS Motor Company against the rejection of its patent application pertaining to a Vehicle Monitoring System. The Court observed that the Controller had not adequately examined the validity of the cited prior art and had failed to provide a reasoned analysis with respect to the inventive step. Consequently, the matter was remanded to a different Controller for fresh consideration.

Court Affirms Controller’s Refusal: Invention deemed obvious to a person skilled in the art

Image of a green board with the text "Isn't it obvious?" written in Chalk

The Madras High Court dismissed Navya Network Inc.’s appeal against the Patent Controller’s refusal, ruling that the claimed invention was obvious to a person skilled in the art. The judgment clarifies the approach to inventive step and non-patentability under Indian patent law, reinforcing standards for algorithm and method claims.

Madras High Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Suit, Allows Coexistence of Technologies

The Madras High Court ruled on a patent infringement dispute involving Arumugam Rajendra Babu and Ashok Leyland over battery-swapping technology. The Court found no infringement and dismissed both the suit and counterclaims, allowing both parties to coexist. The ruling addressed prior art, novelty, and the scope of patent protection in the electric vehicle sector.

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.

Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent application for AI-integrated persona augmentation. The Court ruled that the invention lacked sufficient technical detail, inventive step, and patent-eligible subject matter under the Patents Act. It upheld the Controller’s decision, emphasizing the absence of tangible technical effects and clear disclosure requirements.

Trademark Licensing vs. Assignment: Madras HC on ROYALCHEF Dispute

The Madras High Court ruled that the licensing of the ROYALCHEF trademark does not restrict the licensor’s rights. In a dispute between Quality Chef Agro Foods and ADF Trading, the Court analyzed trademark ownership, assignment, and licensing agreements. It concluded that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no exclusive right to the mark and could not prevent the licensor from exporting goods under the same brand.