Patent Law | Intellepedia

Inventorship of AI Technologies (DABUS): Submissions of the Opponent

In Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor of a food container invention. The Opponent challenges that position by arguing that Indian patent law recognises only human inventors, and that an AI system cannot furnish the inventorship, entitlement, or proof of right needed to sustain a patent application.

Inventorship of DABUS in India: Can an AI System Be the True and First Inventor?

In the case of Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler sought a patent for a food container invention and named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor. That choice led to objections on whether an AI system can be recognised as an inventor in India, whether rights can flow from such inventorship, and whether the same issue could be raised through a pre grant opposition.

‘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.

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.

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

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

Are Employment Agreements sufficient for establishing Proof Of Right?

Close-up of an employment agreement document on a clipboard with a pen placed on top, surrounded by office supplies on a textured surface.

Delhi High Court rules employment agreements valid as proof of right under Section 7(2), aiding patent filings involving deceased inventors.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.