Patent Litigation | Intellepedia

Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning: Court Reiterates Mandatory Five-Step Test for Inventive Step

A white air humidifier releasing mist in a green room with a blurred background, overlaid with the title “Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning” in bold text.

In the case of Energeo Works India Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Patent Office refused a patent application relating to an air cooling system that used a mist of water to pre cool ambient air entering an air cooled chiller assembly. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step in view of two prior art documents and common general knowledge. The applicant challenged the refusal on the ground that the order was unreasoned and that the Controller had not applied the correct legal test for obviousness.

Wanted Dead or Alive: Delhi High Court Holds Patent Revocation Survives Expiry and Section 107 Defence

Hand wearing a blue glove holding a small vial beside torn paper with the words “How to Survive,” symbolizing the Patent revocation case as decided by the Delhi High Court between Boehringer Ingelheim v. Controller

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents & Anr., the Delhi High Court addressed two important questions under the Patents Act: whether a revocation petition survives patent expiry, and whether it can continue after a Section 107 invalidity defence is raised in an infringement suit. The dispute arose from parallel revocation and infringement proceedings relating to Patent IN 243301 covering Linagliptin. The court held that revocation under Section 64 remains maintainable despite patent expiry and is not barred by a Section 107 defence.

Inventive Step Misjudged? Delhi HC Revives Trident’s Patent Application

Composite image showing a close-up of breathable maroon fabric, a cartoon panel of judges giving thumbs up, and colorful yarn balls representing air-rich yarn innovation in a legal patent context

Delhi HC revives Trident’s patent application, citing flaws in the inventive step analysis of its air-rich yarn invention.

Court Clarifies Rules on Confidentiality Clubs and Comparable Licenses in SEP Patent Disputes: Nokia v. Asustek & Ors (2025)

Cartoon banner showing a blond boy holding a finger to his lips in a “shhh” gesture, beside a speech bubble that reads “Shhhhhh..!! It’s Confidential…” on a purple-to-yellow gradient background.

Delhi Hight Court clarifies SEP rules on Confidentiality Clubs and license redactions in Nokia v. Asustek, allowing in-house access without restrictions.

Delhi High Court Patent Injunction: Aquestia Wins Against Automat Industries

A 3D-rendered digital image depicting a legal and engineering theme. The foreground shows a judge's gavel resting on legal documents with metal fittings and coins scattered nearby. In the background, mechanical valve systems are integrated with justice scales, symbolizing a legal dispute over industrial components, likely fluid control valves. The scene combines elements of law and technology, representing a patent conflict or court ruling in an engineering context.

Delhi High Court grants patent injunction to Aquestia, stopping Automat from selling Hydromat valves over suspected patent infringement.

Who Bears the Patent Credibility Challenge Burden?

A photo featuring Auguste Rodin's sculpture The Thinker positioned outdoors against a backdrop of green trees and blue sky. On the left side, there is a dense leafy tree, while on the right, a classical stone building with columns is partially visible.

Mold Tek filed a case for infringement of its patents relating to tamper-proof plastic lids, and secured an interim injunction. The Commercial Court vacated the injunction, placing the burden of establishing validity on the patentee. The Delhi High Court reversed this, clarifying that it is the defendant’s burden to raise a credible invalidity defence under Section 107.

When Delay Becomes Denial: Calcutta High Court Overturns Patent Rejection

The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in BASF SE v. Joint Controller of Patents warrants attention for multiple reasons, particularly as it addresses...

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.

Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Novartis’s Ceritinib patent against Natco’s challenge, addressing divisional application issues and allegations of suppression. The injunction against Natco remains in force, reinforcing the enforceability of Novartis’s patent rights.

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.