Patent Law india | Intellepedia

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

The Madras High Court held that a system for selectively concealing physical addresses in e-commerce is not a business method under Section 3k. The decision clarifies the distinction between technological inventions and business method exclusions in Indian patent law.

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside several patent refusal orders, highlighting the need for proper reasoning and adherence to legal procedures. These judgments clarify essential aspects of patentability assessment and reinforce procedural fairness in Indian patent law.

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside a patent refusal for an image construction apparatus, citing insufficient reasoning under Section 3(k) and inventive step. The Court remanded the matter for reconsideration, highlighting the importance of well-reasoned decisions in patent law.

Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court criticised the Controller of Patents for a superficial inventive step analysis in a recent patent refusal, emphasising the need for rigorous and well-reasoned assessments. The Court has directed a fresh hearing, highlighting the standards required under Indian patent law.

Method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’ is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ruled that a method of producing protein enriched blood serum is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The Court set aside the refusal and directed the Patent Office to reconsider the application after a fresh hearing.

Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that product by process patent claims are to be treated as product claims, not process claims, for both patentability and infringement analysis. This judgment clarifies the legal position and ensures consistent standards for evaluating pharmaceutical and other complex inventions in India.

Reversal of unreasoned and invalid Patent refusals based on Section 3(d), Novelty, and Inventive Step

This post reviews three High Court decisions reversing unreasoned patent refusals in India, focusing on Section 3(d), novelty, and inventive step. The courts stressed the need for considering applicant submissions and proper reasoning in refusal orders.

PepsiCo’s Potato Plant Variety and Patent Agent Address Change through Form 30

The Delhi High Court set aside the revocation of PepsiCo’s potato plant variety, ruling that only substantive validity grounds justify such action. The Court also clarified that patent agents should use Form 30 to update their address and email under Indian patent law.

Draft Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024

The Draft Indian Patent Rules 2024 outlines new adjudication procedures and clarifies key roles in patent-related disputes. The amendments seek to enhance transparency and efficiency in India’s patent process.

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.