Patent Litigation | Intellepedia

Unreasoned Post Grant Opposition Decision Set Aside by the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court set aside a post grant opposition decision in a patent dispute for inadequate reasoning and lack of independent analysis. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration before a different officer to uphold procedural fairness.

Clarifying Product-by-Process Patent Claims in India – West Bengal Chemicals v. GTZ

The Calcutta High Court has clarified the standards for product-by-process patent claims in India, focusing on the necessity of expert evidence in infringement cases. The decision in West Bengal Chemicals v. GTZ provides important guidance for pharmaceutical patent litigation.

Court criticizes Patent Office for using outdated CRI Guidelines

The Madras High Court condemned the Patent Office’s reliance on outdated CRI guidelines in Microsoft’s patent application case, highlighting the significance of technical effect in computer related inventions. The court allowed the appeal and directed a new evaluation.

Cancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over Eltrombopag

The Delhi High Court Division Bench set aside an injunction against Natco Pharma in the Novartis Eltrombopag patent dispute. The judgment provides key guidance on patent validity challenges and the requirements under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act in pharmaceutical cases.

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX

The Delhi High Court’s analysis in Ericsson vs. Lava addresses the novelty and inventive step of key standard essential patents for 3G and EDGE technology. This post summarises the court’s findings on the technical advancements and legal standards applied in evaluating Ericsson’s patents, maintaining a clear and factual legal perspective.

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII

This article provides a detailed analysis of the novelty and inventive step of Ericsson’s AMR patents as examined in Ericsson Vs. Lava. The Delhi High Court’s findings illustrate how Indian patent law standards are applied to complex telecommunication inventions.

A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

The Delhi High Court analysed the validity of eight Ericsson patents under Section 3(k), following Lava’s challenge. Except for the first patent, the Court upheld the remaining patents, finding them to involve technical advancements beyond mere algorithms or mathematical methods.

Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI

The Delhi High Court in Ericsson vs Lava clarified that revocation of a patent on the ground of misrepresentation requires strong, clear evidence of intentional deceit. In this case, Lava failed to meet the legal threshold, resulting in rejection of its revocation claim.

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned the refusal of Microsoft’s patent application, clarifying the correct approach to assessing inventive step and the PSITA standard under Indian law. The decision highlights the need for a nuanced analysis of prior art and patent claims.

Madras High Court Rulings on Patent Application Refusals

Recent Madras High Court rulings have clarified the standards for refusing patent applications in India. The Court emphasized the need for clear, detailed reasoning in refusals, ensuring transparency and fairness in the patent examination process.