‘In Vitro Detection’ Still Diagnostic: Nematode Cancer Test Barred under Section 3(i)

Close-up of a dictionary page with the word “Diagnosis” highlighted in bright green by a chisel-tip highlighter, emphasizing the term against surrounding text. Featured image for article: ‘In Vitro Detection’ Still Diagnostic: Nematode Cancer Test Barred under Section 3(i)

In Hirotsu Bio Science v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court held that branding a process as “in vitro detection” does not rescue it from Section 3(i) when, in substance, it diagnoses cancer. The nematode-based urine test was thus refused as an excluded diagnostic method.

Read more about ‘In Vitro Detection’ Still Diagnostic: Nematode Cancer Test Barred under Section 3(i)

Shattering one order at a time – Court allows appeal against refusal of glass fiber patent

Close-up view of pink-tinted glass fibers arranged in parallel strands, showing fine linear textures and an iridescent sheen Featured image for article: Shattering one order at a time – Court allows appeal against refusal of glass fiber patent

The Calcutta High Court overturns OCV patent rejection, reinforcing ‘teaching away’ doctrine, inventive step analysis, and Section 3(e) interpretation.

Read more about Shattering one order at a time – Court allows appeal against refusal of glass fiber patent

You Can’t Park Patent Rights in the E-Ricksha Registration Lane

You Can’t Park Patent Rights in the E-Ricksha Registration Lane Featured image for article: You Can’t Park Patent Rights in the E-Ricksha Registration Lane

In the case of M/s Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors., the Calcutta High Court addressed whether claims of patent rights can prevent registration of e-rickshaws. The court ruled that vehicle registration authorities must act according to statutory rules, and pending patent claims do not automatically restrain registration.

Read more about You Can’t Park Patent Rights in the E-Ricksha Registration Lane

Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step

Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step Featured image for article: Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step

In the case of TVS Motor Company vs Patent Office, a scooter maker’s patent claim for a simple yet novel frame design was rejected for lacking inventive step. The court disagreed with the reasoning and ordered the Patent Office to re-examine the application using a proper test.

Read more about Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step

Dr Reddy’s Semaglutide Exports to Continue as Court Denies Interim Relief to Novo Nordisk

Semaglutide injection pen with syringe surrounded by weighing scale, tape measure, dumbbell and fast food, symbolising weight loss and diabetes treatment. Featured image for article: Dr Reddy’s Semaglutide Exports to Continue as Court Denies Interim Relief to Novo Nordisk

The Delhi High Court refused Novo Nordisk interim relief against Dr Reddy’s, finding that the Semaglutide species patent faces serious validity challenges in light of the earlier genus patent. The Court allowed Dr Reddy’s to continue manufacturing Semaglutide in India solely for export to non-patent jurisdictions, with no domestic sales.

Read more about Dr Reddy’s Semaglutide Exports to Continue as Court Denies Interim Relief to Novo Nordisk

Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent Oppositions

Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent Oppositions Featured image for article: Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent Oppositions

In the case of M/s Hi Tech Chemicals Limited vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., the Madras High Court examined whether documents labeled as additional evidence could be admitted after the hearing was fixed in a post-grant patent opposition. The Court looked at the patent rules, and held that private documents do not qualify as “publications” under Rule 62(4), and are therefore not admissible after the hearing date was fixed.

Read more about Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent Oppositions

Patent Refusal Cannot Be a Single Line: Calcutta High Court Calls for Reasoned Orders

Yellow road marking with bold black text reading “SINGLE LINE. DO NOT CROSS,” symbolizing the lack of reasoning in the Stromag GmbH patent refusal—a single-line decision that violated principles of natural justice. Featured image for article: Patent Refusal Cannot Be a Single Line: Calcutta High Court Calls for Reasoned Orders

In the case of Stromag GmbH vs. Controller General of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that patent refusal orders must contain detailed reasoning. A single-line dismissal, the court said, does not meet the legal standards of a quasi-judicial function and is unsustainable.

Read more about Patent Refusal Cannot Be a Single Line: Calcutta High Court Calls for Reasoned Orders

From Refusal to Reconsideration: A Second Chance for Zhejiang’s Hair Dye Patent

Hairbrush and bowl of white hair dye cream beside a brown hair lock; banner text: A Fresh Review for Hair Dye Patent Featured image for article: From Refusal to Reconsideration: A Second Chance for Zhejiang’s Hair Dye Patent

Madras High Court gives Zhejiang’s hair dye patent a new lease on life, quashing an unreasoned refusal and directing a fresh, reasoned hearing.

Read more about From Refusal to Reconsideration: A Second Chance for Zhejiang’s Hair Dye Patent