Madras High Court | Intellepedia

Patent examination should not kill the scientific temper of an inventor

The Madras High Court set aside the rejection of Industeel France’s patent application, stressing the need for fair and consistent patent examination. The judgment highlights the importance of protecting inventors’ scientific temper and ensuring time-bound decisions under Indian patent law.

New claims, Old claims, and Claim Amendments: Section 59 of the Patents Act

This post examines a Madras High Court ruling on Section 59 of the Patents Act regarding patent claim amendments. The Court clarified procedural requirements and applicant rights during the patent examination process in India.

Monoclonal antibodies and Patents – How the Madras High Court interpreted Section 3(c)

The Madras High Court clarified the interpretation of Section 3c regarding patent eligibility of monoclonal antibodies in India. The Court held that synthetic antibodies may be patentable if they demonstrate novelty or technical advancement.

Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s Refusal

The Madras High Court has reversed the Patent Office’s rejection of Novozymes’ patent for enzyme granules in animal feed, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning in refusal orders. The decision clarifies the application of inventive step and Section 3d in Indian patent law.

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court held that Section 3c of the Patents Act, 1970 does not exclude engineered non-living substances from patent protection. The ruling clarifies the distinction between discovery and invention for biotechnology patents in India.

Courts Weigh on Inordinate Delay in Patent Orders and Scope of Claim Amendments

The Delhi and Madras High Courts recently set aside patent refusal orders, addressing inordinate delays and the scope of permissible claim amendments. These judgments clarify key patent law principles and reinforce procedural fairness in India.

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.

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

The Madras High Court granted an injunction against the use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers trademarks, addressing a domain name dispute involving kalyanjewellers.com. The judgment reinforces protection for trademark owners in India.

Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?

The Madras High Court has clarified that a trademark invalidity plea under Section 124 can be made in documents beyond the written statement, such as counter affidavits in interim applications. This broad interpretation ensures that the right to seek rectification is preserved even if the written statement is forfeited.

Interesting Trademark Cases involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’ Marks

This post examines recent trademark cases from the Delhi, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts, focusing on injunctions and rectification. The analysis underlines the significance of registration and consistent trademark use for legal protection in India.