Patentability | Intellepedia

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.

Blackberry blacks out in case relating to patentability of algorithmic processes

The Delhi High Court dismissed Blackberry’s appeal against refusal of its patent application, holding that algorithmic processes remain excluded from patent protection under Indian law. The decision clarifies the interpretation of Section 3k with respect to software and computer-related inventions.

Computer Programs with Technical Effect such as enhancing speed and efficiency are patentable, reiterates the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has confirmed that computer programs with demonstrable technical effect, such as improving speed or efficiency, may be patentable under Indian law. This decision aligns Indian patent jurisprudence with international standards and clarifies the scope of Section 3(k).

Cow dung lamp from Traditional Knowledge fails to light up patentability standards

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal seeking patent protection for a cow dung lamp, finding it ineligible due to reliance on traditional knowledge and lack of inventive step. The judgment offers clarity on the application of Section 3(p) and inventive step analysis under Indian patent law.

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

This post analyses the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of Section 3(k) in Ericsson vs Lava, focusing on the patentability of algorithms and computer programs in India. It clarifies the assessment criteria for such inventions and the legislative intent behind software patentability.

5 Reasons to Conduct a Patent Search

Conducting a patent search is a key step in evaluating a new product idea. It enables you to assess patentability, identify potential risks, and understand industry trends. A well-executed search supports effective competitor analysis and informed product development.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Inventions and Patents

Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala explores the challenges and trends in artificial intelligence patents, with particular attention to India’s legal and patent office landscape. The article provides an objective analysis of patentability, inventorship, and policy gaps in AI innovation.

Searching for Patents and Patentability of AI and Software Inventions: Session 2 of the Masterclass on IP

This session of the masterclass explored patentability criteria and search strategies for AI and software inventions. Attendees learned about the patent process, prior art search, and practical considerations for Indian innovators. The session offered valuable guidance on intellectual property for startups.

Section 3(ka): A Decision on a Patent Application Related to Mathematical Methods

The IPAB upheld the rejection of a patent application involving mathematical methods under section 3(ka) of the Indian Patents Act. This decision clarifies the exclusion of mathematical methods from patentable subject matter in India, aligning with recent draft guidelines.