Patent Law india | Intellepedia

Madras High Court Upholds Patent Validity in Embio Limited vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

The Madras High Court affirmed the validity of Malladi Drugs’ patent for chiral beta-amino alcohols, highlighting the invention’s novelty and inventive step. The judgment clarifies key principles on patent revocation and the definition of a “person interested” under Indian patent law.

A doped order on method of doping, court clarifies

The Madras High Court upheld the Patent Office’s refusal of IIT Madras’s patent application for a method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate. The judgment clarifies the application of Section 3d and inventive step requirements in Indian patent law.

‘Controller under an obligation to inform inventor’ says Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stressed that patent Controllers are obliged to provide detailed reasoning for refusals, enabling inventors to understand the grounds for rejection. The Court set aside two refusal orders and ordered fresh consideration, reinforcing the importance of transparency and due process in 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.

Inventive Step Assessment: To be Anchored in Knowledge of a Person with Ordinary Skill on the Priority Date

The Delhi High Court’s decision highlights the requirement for an objective inventive step assessment anchored in the knowledge of a person skilled in the art at the priority date. The ruling emphasises the need for detailed analysis and avoidance of hindsight in patent examinations.

Boehringer secures Patent Injunction for its Diabetes Drug – Empagliflozin

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted Boehringer Ingelheim an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences, preventing the manufacture and sale of Empagliflozin during the suit. The case provides insights into the judicial approach towards pharmaceutical patent disputes in India.

Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Ericsson vs Lava addresses sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act. The Court found Ericsson’s patents to be sufficiently disclosed, rejecting Lava’s revocation claims.

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court held that Section 3c of the Patents Act, 1970 does not exclude engineered non-living substances from patent protection. The ruling clarifies the distinction between discovery and invention for biotechnology patents in India.

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

The Delhi High Court dismissed Google’s appeal against the rejection of its patent application, finding no inventive step over prior art. A fine of Rs.1 lakh was also imposed on Google for incorrect disclosure regarding its European patent application.

Courts Weigh on Inordinate Delay in Patent Orders and Scope of Claim Amendments

The Delhi and Madras High Courts recently set aside patent refusal orders, addressing inordinate delays and the scope of permissible claim amendments. These judgments clarify key patent law principles and reinforce procedural fairness in India.