Patent Law india | Intellepedia

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.

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.