Patent Law | Intellepedia

Patent Upheld, Design Dismissed: Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation – Part 1: Infringement & Relief

Illustration showing two people in discussion on the left and a justice scale on the right, with the text in between: “Dura-Line to Jain Irrigation: We Patented It. You Replicated It.” on a light green background.

This post analyzes the Delhi High Court’s decision in Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation, where the Court found patent infringement but rejected the design infringement claim.

Section 3(i) Rejections Reversed: Diagnostic Methods Must Disclose Pathology Per Se

In two recent decisions, the Madras High Court reversed patent application rejections under Section 3(i), clarifying that only diagnostic methods disclosing pathology per se fall within the exclusion. The Court remanded matters for fresh review, ensuring fair consideration and reasoned decisions by the IPO.

Failure to consider Post-filing data violates natural Justice, reiterates Calcutta High Court

3D molecular structure with colored spheres representing atoms (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen) on the left, accompanied by bold black text on a light beige background that reads: 'Failure to Consider Post-Filing Data Violates Natural Justice'

The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that failure to consider post-filing data in patent applications breaches natural justice. In the Takeda case, it found the refusal of a patent for Brigatinib unjustified due to the Controller’s oversight of vital evidence and remanded the matter for reevaluation.

Revocation is Distinct from Invalidity Defence and Survives Patent Expiry, rules Delhi High Court

Gavel, law books, and justice scale beside the text "Revocation Is Distinct from Invalidity Defence and Survives Patent Expiry, Rules Delhi High Court" on a dark blue background.

The Delhi High Court held that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act is distinct from an invalidity defence under Section 107 and remains valid post-patent expiry. The Court emphasized the broader legal impact of revocation, affirming its maintainability even when the patent has lapsed.

Court Affirms Controller’s Refusal: Invention deemed obvious to a person skilled in the art

Image of a green board with the text "Isn't it obvious?" written in Chalk

The Madras High Court dismissed Navya Network Inc.’s appeal against the Patent Controller’s refusal, ruling that the claimed invention was obvious to a person skilled in the art. The judgment clarifies the approach to inventive step and non-patentability under Indian patent law, reinforcing standards for algorithm and method claims.

Failure to Disclose Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Procedural Fairness, Rules Calcutta High Court

"Dictionary entry highlighting the word 'disclose' with its definition to make information known or public."

Introduction The Calcutta High Court recently overturned the Controller’s decision to reject a patent application in the case of UCB Pharma GmbH & Anr. v....

When Delay Becomes Denial: Calcutta High Court Overturns Patent Rejection

The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in BASF SE v. Joint Controller of Patents warrants attention for multiple reasons, particularly as it addresses...

Patentability vs. Procedure: Finding the Right Balance during patent examinations

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Arcturus Therapeutics, overturning the Controller’s rejection of its patent application on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance should not override substantive examination, directing the Patent Office to reassess the application on its merits.

Patent Abandonment Overturned: Delhi HC Rules on FER Miscommunication

The Delhi High Court set aside the deemed abandonment of Waterotor’s Indian patent application, citing miscommunication regarding the First Examination Report (FER). The Court ruled that the lack of timely FER receipt justified reinstatement, directing the Patent Office to restore the application’s status to “pending” and allow a response within four weeks.

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.