Patent Law | Intellepedia

Patent Associate Openings at BananaIP – Mechanical & Electronics

Patent Associate Job Openings at BananaIP

Openings for Patent Associates in Mechanical and Electronics at BananaIP, Bangalore—drafting, prosecution, and tech analysis for serious innovators. Apply via hr@bananaip.com.

From Refusal to Reconsideration: A Second Chance for Zhejiang’s Hair Dye Patent

Hairbrush and bowl of white hair dye cream beside a brown hair lock; banner text: A Fresh Review for Hair Dye Patent

Madras High Court gives Zhejiang’s hair dye patent a new lease on life, quashing an unreasoned refusal and directing a fresh, reasoned hearing.

No Injunction After Patent Expiry, Holds Delhi High Court

An elderly woman in traditional clothing operates a spinning wheel in a dimly lit room. The word "EXPIRED" is prominently overlaid across the image in bold white letters.

In the case of Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v. LMW Limited, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction after the expiry of the patent in suit. The Court held that patent rights lapse with expiry and cannot be enforced thereafter.

Delhi High Court Allows Claim Amendment During Appeal in Albemarle Patent Case

The Delhi High Court allowed Albemarle Corporation to amend claims at the appellate stage, and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for re-examination.

Coca-Cola Patent Appeal: Delhi HC Emphasizes Need for Reasoned Inventive Step Analysis

A row of classic Coca-Cola glass bottles with red labels and caps, placed against a bright yellow background.

Delhi HC overturned Coca-Cola’s patent refusal, stressing the need for detailed inventive step analysis in patent decisions.

Shindengen’s Patent Application remanded for fresh consideration for lack of reasoned order

Illustration of a desk lamp shining light on the glowing handwritten text "Reasoned order?" set against a dark blue background.

The Calcutta High Court remanded Shindengen Electric’s 2015 patent application after finding that the rejection order lacked proper reasoning. The decision emphasised the need for administrative transparency and importance of importance of judicial reasoning.

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.