NOVELTY | Intellepedia

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX

The Delhi High Court’s analysis in Ericsson vs. Lava addresses the novelty and inventive step of key standard essential patents for 3G and EDGE technology. This post summarises the court’s findings on the technical advancements and legal standards applied in evaluating Ericsson’s patents, maintaining a clear and factual legal perspective.

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII

This article provides a detailed analysis of the novelty and inventive step of Ericsson’s AMR patents as examined in Ericsson Vs. Lava. The Delhi High Court’s findings illustrate how Indian patent law standards are applied to complex telecommunication inventions.

Reversal of unreasoned and invalid Patent refusals based on Section 3(d), Novelty, and Inventive Step

This post reviews three High Court decisions reversing unreasoned patent refusals in India, focusing on Section 3(d), novelty, and inventive step. The courts stressed the need for considering applicant submissions and proper reasoning in refusal orders.

Patentability Requirements in India

This post explores the five patentability requirements under Indian law, including subject matter, novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, and specification. It discusses statutory provisions, key case law, and practical considerations in patent grant and validity assessments.

Patentability of Biotechnology Inventions in India

The post provides a detailed analysis of the criteria for patentability of biotechnology inventions in India, focusing on statutory exclusions and legal requirements. It further outlines how industrial applicability, novelty, inventive step, enablement, and morality are assessed for biotechnology inventions under Indian law.

Anticipation – Mere Presence of Elements Insufficient; Arrangement of Elements Imperative

This analysis addresses the requirement for both the presence and arrangement of claim elements in anticipation under patent law, drawing from the Net MoneyIN v. Verisign case. The Federal Circuit clarified that combining separate disclosures within a single prior art reference is insufficient to establish anticipation.

Industrial Designs -Design Protection & Originality

This article examines the criteria for industrial design protection in India, highlighting the importance of substantial originality and novelty. It references key legal standards and judgments, guiding readers on compliance and rights assessment.

Complications In Patenting Biotech Inventions: A Peek At US Law

This article explores the complications of patenting biotechnology inventions under US law, highlighting issues with current patentability standards. It proposes a balanced policy model to address both innovation and public access concerns in the biotech sector.

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs. Hindustan Metal Industries

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries established the standard for inventive step and novelty in Indian patent law. The Supreme Court’s reasoning remains central to assessing patentability in India.

Patent and Public Domain Balance 2 – Patentability Requirements

This article explores the essential requirements for patentability and their function in shaping the boundary between patent protection and the public domain. It discusses the influence of the TRIPS Agreement and national discretion on patent standards.