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.

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

The Madras High Court set aside the refusal of Hygieia’s patent application, stressing the importance of considering amended claims with the original specification. The case provides key guidance on section 59 and claim amendments under Indian patent law.

Delhi High Court Reverses Patent Office Decision: Honeywell’s Amendments Upheld

The Delhi High Court overturned the Patent Office’s refusal of Honeywell’s patent amendments, holding that the changes were within the scope of the original claims. This ruling affirms the importance of fair and thorough examination of patent applications under Indian law.

Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal, holding that applications must be assessed with thorough reasoning under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The judgment stresses the need for detailed analysis of inventive step and legal compliance in patent rejections.

Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition are independent processes

The Delhi High Court has confirmed that patent examination and pre-grant opposition are independent processes under Indian law. Pre-grant opponents are entitled to participate only on specific grounds of opposition, not throughout the examination. This distinction ensures a balanced, efficient, and legally compliant patent process.

Principles for filing Divisional Patent Applications in India

This post reviews the legal principles for filing divisional patent applications in India, focusing on the requirement for a plurality of inventions in the parent application’s claims. It provides an analytical overview of recent court decisions and statutory provisions governing the process.

Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has provided clear procedural guidance for patent opposition proceedings, focusing on transparency and fair opportunity for all parties. The judgment underscores the importance of timely decisions on claim amendments and systematic handling of pre-grant oppositions by the Indian Patent Office.

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.