Patent Refusal | Intellepedia

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.

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

The Madras High Court has overturned the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a soluble foaming composition patent, highlighting procedural lapses in considering applicant submissions. The matter will now be reconsidered by another patent officer within four months.

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside several patent refusal orders, highlighting the need for proper reasoning and adherence to legal procedures. These judgments clarify essential aspects of patentability assessment and reinforce procedural fairness in Indian patent law.

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside a patent refusal for an image construction apparatus, citing insufficient reasoning under Section 3(k) and inventive step. The Court remanded the matter for reconsideration, highlighting the importance of well-reasoned decisions in patent law.

Refusal of a patent application based on prior art not cited in hearing notice set aside by the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal where the Controller relied on prior art not cited in the hearing notice. The decision underscores the importance of fair opportunity and proper analysis in patent proceedings in India.

Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court criticised the Controller of Patents for a superficial inventive step analysis in a recent patent refusal, emphasising the need for rigorous and well-reasoned assessments. The Court has directed a fresh hearing, highlighting the standards required under Indian patent law.

Method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’ is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ruled that a method of producing protein enriched blood serum is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The Court set aside the refusal and directed the Patent Office to reconsider the application after a fresh hearing.

Reversal of unreasoned and invalid Patent refusals based on Section 3(d), Novelty, and Inventive Step

This post reviews three High Court decisions reversing unreasoned patent refusals in India, focusing on Section 3(d), novelty, and inventive step. The courts stressed the need for considering applicant submissions and proper reasoning in refusal orders.