Patent Validity | Intellepedia

A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

This post analyzes an Indian court case between Ericsson and Lava focusing on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. This section prohibits patents on mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs, and algorithms. The court evaluated the patentability of eight patents related to mobile communication technologies under Section 3(k).

Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.

The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent.

Temporary Injunction: Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah

This post analyses the Mariappan vs AR Safiullah case on temporary injunctions in Indian patent disputes. The court scrutinised inventive step and the requirements for interim relief, ultimately denying the injunction due to lack of prima facie validity.

Temporary Injunction: J. Mitra Vs. Kesar Medicaments

In J. Mitra Vs. Kesar Medicaments, the Court examined criteria for granting a temporary injunction in a patent infringement suit. The analysis considered patent validity, infringement, and the balance of convenience, ultimately favouring interim relief for the patent holder.

Temporary Injunction: Manika Thevar Vs. Star Plough Works

This post discusses the denial of a temporary injunction in Manika Thevar Vs. Star Plough Works, focusing on patent validity and the criteria for interim relief in Indian patent law. The Court’s analysis highlights the importance of a prima facie case and the impact of recent patents facing validity challenges.