Patent Refusal | Intellepedia

Steering the divide: Steer Engineering’s divisional application denied by Court

A surreal scene of a car steering wheel standing upright in a narrow trench cut through a dry grassy field under a partly cloudy sky at sunset reflecting Steer Engineering’s failed patent appeal and the Court upholding the refusal of the divisional application.

Madras High Court upheld the refusal of Steer Engineering’s divisional patent application, affirming lack of inventive step and overlap with the parent filing.

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.

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.

Patent Refusal Cannot Be a Single Line: Calcutta High Court Calls for Reasoned Orders

Yellow road marking with bold black text reading “SINGLE LINE. DO NOT CROSS,” symbolizing the lack of reasoning in the Stromag GmbH patent refusal—a single-line decision that violated principles of natural justice.

In the case of Stromag GmbH vs. Controller General of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that patent refusal orders must contain detailed reasoning. A single-line dismissal, the court said, does not meet the legal standards of a quasi-judicial function and is unsustainable.

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.

Blackberry’s Patent Refusal Set Aside by Delhi High Court

City skyline at night with glowing Wi-Fi symbols and connection lines, representing wireless communication and smart city connectivity

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Indian Patent Office’s refusal of Blackberry’s communication patent application. Citing a lack of reasoning and violation of natural justice principles, the Court directed a fresh evaluation of the amendments and remaining objections under the Patents Act.

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.

Madras High Court Overturns Patent Refusal under section 3(d), Reiterates Importance of Reasoned Orders and Natural Justice

The Madras High Court set aside a patent refusal under section 3d, citing lack of procedural fairness and insufficient reasoning. The Court directed reconsideration, underscoring the necessity of reasoned orders and respect for principles of natural justice in patent proceedings.

Section 3(j), Essentially biological processes and human intervention

The Madras High Court considered whether human intervention in a plant breeding method excluded it from section 3(j) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded to the Patent Office, underlining the importance of clear reasoning in patent refusals involving essentially biological processes.

A doped order on method of doping, court clarifies

The Madras High Court upheld the Patent Office’s refusal of IIT Madras’s patent application for a method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate. The judgment clarifies the application of Section 3d and inventive step requirements in Indian patent law.