patent obviousness | Intellepedia

Ziegler-Natta Catalyst Patent Rejection Upheld for Lack of Inventive Step

Illustration of a judge at a courtroom bench holding a gavel, smiling and giving a thumbs down, with a speech bubble saying “This is ‘Natta’ Catalyst” – a pun referring to the rejection of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst patent.

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of Lummus Novolen’s patent for a Ziegler-Natta catalyst, citing lack of inventive step and similarity to prior art. Read the key observations and legal reasoning.

Is Criteria to Determine Obviousness in Patent Still Ambiguous?

The post discusses the persistent ambiguity in the legal criteria for determining obviousness in patent matters. It assesses recent judicial trends and the impact of landmark cases like KSR v Teleflex, noting the continued subjectivity in evaluating inventive step in India.