Patent Amendments | Intellepedia

Patent Claim Amendments – Court’s observation of amendments to systems, methods and use claims

Illustration of a peaceful, smiling monk in orange robes sitting cross-legged with eyes closed, surrounded by a yellow halo, under the curved text "It’s all about accepting the change" on a peach background.

The Calcutta High Court remanded a patent application back to the Controller of Patents, citing infrimities in evaluating claim amendments. The Court stressed that mere change in claim types—method to system—without analyzing technical substance cannot justify rejection under Section 59 of the Indian Patents Act.

Blackberry’s Patent Refusal Set Aside by Delhi High Court

City skyline at night with glowing Wi-Fi symbols and connection lines, representing wireless communication and smart city connectivity

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Indian Patent Office’s refusal of Blackberry’s communication patent application. Citing a lack of reasoning and violation of natural justice principles, the Court directed a fresh evaluation of the amendments and remaining objections under the Patents Act.

Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)

The Delhi High Court, in Syngenta Crop Protection AG vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, examined the rejection of an Indian patent application under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Court ruled that plant treatment methods are distinct from agricultural processes, referring to the 2003 amendment to Section 3(i), and remanded the case for fresh examination with amended claims.

Claim Amendments within the Scope of Patent Specification are Permissible, the Delhi High Court reiterates

The Delhi High Court overturned the Deputy Controller’s decision rejecting Axcess Limited’s patent application. The Court ruled that the amended claims were within the scope of the original application and remanded the case for fresh consideration, providing guidance on permissible amendments under the Patents Act, 1970.

Court balances Hygieia’s patent application after IPO disbalances it under section 59

The Madras High Court has set aside the refusal of Hygieia Inc.’s patent application, highlighting the need for proper consideration of amended claims. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting claims in conjunction with their specifications and has directed a re-examination of the application by a different controller within six months.

A Conduit for INVALID PATENTS – Section 13(1)(b)

Section 13(1)(b) of the Indian Patent Act may inadvertently allow for the grant of invalid patents by restricting prior art consideration to only the claims of earlier Indian applications. A reconsideration of this provision is suggested to ensure more robust patent examination and to achieve the legislative intent of preventing invalid patents.

Amendments to a PCT Application under Article 19 and Article 34

This article objectively discusses the procedures and requirements for amending a PCT application under Article 19 and Article 34. It provides a clear, structured analysis of the relevant legal provisions and their practical significance for patent applicants in India.

‘DEMAND’ only if you want to

Filing a PCT Demand is an optional step enabling applicants to address objections raised by the International Search Authority. It can lead to a more favourable preliminary patentability report, aiding national phase decisions and reducing future objections.

Patent Process- Examination of Patent Applications in India

This post analyses the patent examination process in India, from the filing of a request for examination to the issuance of the First Examination Report. It discusses statutory requirements, applicant responses, and the legal framework governing objections and amendments.