Patent Rejection | Intellepedia

Billing and Usage Data Invention Not a Business Method Under Section 3(k) of Patents Act

A smiling woman in an office uses billing software on her computer, with a large “PATENTED” seal displayed over the screen, signifying the billing software has received patent protection.

The Madras High Court has ruled in favour of Tekelec Inc., setting aside the rejection of its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act. The Court found the invention addressed a technical problem and did not constitute a business method, ordering a reassessment limited to software-related exclusions.

Not Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal Formulation

A red "REJECTED" stamp is shown on the left side, while a hand on the right holds a green reverse card from the Uno game, symbolizing a reversal of decision. The background is a soft peach color.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application filed by UPL Ltd., involving innovative fungicidal combinations. The Court found that the rejection order issued by the Controller lacked detailed reasoning and had procedural deficiencies, particularly concerning inventive step and treatment of experimental data.

Patent on Carbon Capture Process freed from IPO refusal

A dark carbon footprint symbol is imprinted on a vibrant green grass background, representing the capture of carbon by nature.

The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of a patent on a carbon capture process, citing the Patent Office’s failure to adequately justify its decision and its reliance on new, unaddressed grounds. The Court remanded the case for a fresh hearing with a focus on technical and economic evaluations.

When Delay Becomes Denial: Calcutta High Court Overturns Patent Rejection

The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in BASF SE v. Joint Controller of Patents warrants attention for multiple reasons, particularly as it addresses...

Patentability vs. Procedure: Finding the Right Balance during patent examinations

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.

Frivolous inventions and abstract theories – Delhi High Court refuses patent appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application due to lack of novelty and a significant procedural delay of 701 days. The appellants, who had filed a patent application for black-colored wearables with claimed effects on human energy, failed to provide scientific evidence or technical merit. The court upheld the Indian Patent Office’s decision, emphasizing that abstract ideas are not patentable and reaffirming the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines for appeals.

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 Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent application for AI-integrated persona augmentation. The Court ruled that the invention lacked sufficient technical detail, inventive step, and patent-eligible subject matter under the Patents Act. It upheld the Controller’s decision, emphasizing the absence of tangible technical effects and clear disclosure requirements.

Methods for Antibody Production in Genetically Modified Animals are Patentable; they are not covered under Section 3(i) Exclusion

The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of Kymab Limited’s patent application related to generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The Court found that the invention does not fall under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it is not a method for treating animals but a process for producing antibodies using genetically modified animals. The patent is now set to be granted.

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.