Madras High Court | 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.

MRF’s Trademark Muscle Secures Victory in Dispute Against Powermax

The Madras High Court granted MRF a permanent injunction and nominal damages against Powermax for trademark and copyright infringement. The judgment underscores the legal significance of safeguarding established trademarks in India.

Court Lifts injunction on Tractor-Forklift Design

The Madras High Court lifted an injunction on a tractor-forklift design, finding the design not new or original under Indian law. The case highlights the requirements for design registration and addresses the boundaries of industrial design protection.

Let’s see who gets the ‘Zee’! Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment

The Madras High Court remanded a trademark dispute involving Prem Biyani and Zee Entertainment, focusing on class distinctions and the status of well-known marks. The judgment highlights the need for careful, statutory evaluation of trademark applications across different classes.

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.