Protein-free foaming innovation revived! Madras High Court overturns patent refusal due to Controller’s failure to address key arguments and consider crucial differences from prior art. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough analysis and considering applicant submissions in patent decisions.
Read more about Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set asideTag: Madras High Court
Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.
In this case, the Madras High Court sheds light on proving applicant’s right, emphasizing the difference between assignment and declaration dates. This case offers insights for smoother patent applications in India and is likely to provide much-needed clarity to Applicants and Controllers alike who often encounter the same or similar objections relating to proof of right under Section 7(2) and Rule 10 of the Patents Act.
Read more about Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court
Madras High Court supports three inventions by overturning three patent refusals on grounds of Lack of valid grounds (RTA-408 case), failure to consider inventive features (fluidized bed boiler case) and procedural error (fuel temperature control case).
Read more about Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High CourtChand-z Vs. Chand-A For Lungis: Chand-A trademark is not infringing as the use is honest and concurrent, says the Madras High Court.
“Chand” textile trademark owner loses infringement case against “Chand-A” lungi brand. Court finds long, honest, concurrent use by defendant since 1952 prevents confusion. Lack of concrete evidence weakens plaintiff’s claim of permissive use. Court outlines principles for proving honest and concurrent trademark use.
Read more about Chand-z Vs. Chand-A For Lungis: Chand-A trademark is not infringing as the use is honest and concurrent, says the Madras High Court.Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court
Madras High Court overturned patent refusal for “Image Construction Apparatus” due to insufficient reasoning from the Controller regarding inventive step and Section 3(k). The Court criticized failure to consider the fact that the European Patent Office (EPO) had granted a patent based on the same prior art references and the disregard to analyze technical aspects per Section 3(k).
Read more about Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High CourtMadras High Court Rulings on Patent Application Refusals
In this post, we examine recent Madras High Court rulings that have overturned patent application refusals. These cases, involving complex topics such as immunological targeting,...
Read more about Madras High Court Rulings on Patent Application RefusalsMadras High Court’s Progressive Stance on Patent Claim Amendments and Other Aspects
In this post, we at BananaIP bring to you select Patent cases relating to Patent Claim amendments, Patent exclusions, and Patent orders. Amending polypeptide patent...
Read more about Madras High Court’s Progressive Stance on Patent Claim Amendments and Other AspectsKey Judgments on Movie Rights Assignments from Madras High Court | Case Notes
In the world of cinema, especially in a country as diverse and film-centric as India, the legal intricacies surrounding movie rights play a significant role...
Read more about Key Judgments on Movie Rights Assignments from Madras High Court | Case NotesWeekly Trademark Updates
This week’s trademark updates are as follows – PhonePe' vs 'DIGIPE' - Madras High Court grants interim relief to the plaintiff PhonePe Private Limited, the...
Read more about Weekly Trademark UpdatesMissed filing a request for examination? court says, condonable under exceptional circumstances.
Facts of the case: The Petitioner in this case filed two writ petitions challenging the order of the Respondent (herein referred to as Patent Office)...
Read more about Missed filing a request for examination? court says, condonable under exceptional circumstances.