The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Arcturus Therapeutics, overturning the Controller’s rejection of its patent application on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance should not override substantive examination, directing the Patent Office to reassess the application on its merits.
Read more about Patentability vs. Procedure: Finding the Right Balance during patent examinationsTag: patent Office
A doped order on method of doping, court clarifies
The Madras High Court confirmed the Patent Office’s rejection of IIT Madras’s patent for a method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate. The Court agreed with the rejection based on Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, but noted procedural shortcomings in the handling of the case.
Read more about A doped order on method of doping, court clarifiesCourt balances Hygieia’s patent application after IPO disbalances it under section 59
The Madras High Court has set aside the refusal of Hygieia Inc.’s patent application, highlighting the need for proper consideration of amended claims. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting claims in conjunction with their specifications and has directed a re-examination of the application by a different controller within six months.
Read more about Court balances Hygieia’s patent application after IPO disbalances it under section 59Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration
The Delhi High Court has faulted the Patent Office for rejecting a patent application without adequate reasoning. The case involved a beverage can closure design, and the Controller’s decision lacked clarity and failed to address the applicant’s arguments effectively. The Court has sent the case back for a proper re-examination, highlighting the need for thoroughness in patent application reviews.
Read more about Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo considerationPatent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.
The Delhi High Court recently highlighted the importance of clear and detailed reasoning in patent office rejections. In this case of Calm Water Therapeutics LLC’s patent application, the court found the initial rejection order by the patent office to be flawed as the revised claim was not considered and no detailed explanation was provided in the rejection. The court emphasized the need for the Patent Office to provide clear explanations and conduct thorough examinations before rejecting applications.
Read more about Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) must clearly and unambiguously articulate objections to patent applications. This case involved Microsoft’s patent application for “Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves,” which was rejected by the IPO for lacking inventive step and violating disclosure requirements. The Court found the IPO’s objections to be ambiguous and procedurally irregular, thereby stressing on fair hearings and proper communication during the patent examination process.
Read more about Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguousManual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure: BananaIP’s Comments / Suggestions
BananaIP Counsels has recently submitted its comments and suggestions to the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) with respect to...
Read more about Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure: BananaIP’s Comments / SuggestionsCASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited
Facts (with Timeline): i) FMC Corporation and FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd. (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) were assigned Indian Patent No. 298645 (suit patent/IN’645) titled...
Read more about CASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma LimitedWithout Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court
In a recent case involving Gogoro Inc, the Delhi High Court remanded a patent decision back to the patent office on the ground that the...
Read more about Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High CourtCASE BRIEF: Novo Nordisk AS vs. Union of India & Ors.
Facts (with Timeline): On 4th October, 2013, Novo Nordisk (hereinafter referred to as “Patentee”) was issued patent IN 257402. On 29th September, 2014, which is five...
Read more about CASE BRIEF: Novo Nordisk AS vs. Union of India & Ors.