Patentability | Intellepedia

Patentability of Biotech Inventions in USA – Patentable Subject Matter

This post provides an analytical overview of the patentability of biotech inventions in the USA, focusing on statutory exclusions and major judicial decisions. It explains how US courts interpret the product of nature doctrine and outlines current limitations and developments in biotechnology patent law.

Once an Intermediate, Always an Intermediate

This post examines the exclusion of patentability for new uses of known intermediates under Section 3d of the Indian Patents Act. It discusses the statutory language, its implications for pharmaceutical innovation, and whether this aligns with the broader objectives of the patent system in India.

Patentability of scientific principles and natural relationships in the light of Laboratory Corp. v Metabolite

This article analyses the legal boundaries for patenting scientific principles and natural relationships, with a focus on the Laboratory Corp v Metabolite case. It explores US Supreme Court jurisprudence and the ongoing debate over patent eligibility in diagnostic methods and biotechnology.

Swiss Claims are History!

The EPO decision G02/08 has made Swiss type claims a thing of the past, favouring purpose-related product claims for subsequent medical indications. This post examines the legal developments and implications under current European patent law.

Patentability requirements – A Presentation by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala at NLS – Bangalore

[slideshare id=123861782&doc=patentabilityinindia-181124124503]

Is a Method of Massaging Patentable subject matter?

The post analyses whether massage methods can be patented in India, highlighting the distinction between non-medical and medical methods under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. It references UK practice and suggests the Indian Patent Office may follow similar standards in the absence of direct precedents.

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs. Hindustan Metal Industries

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries established the standard for inventive step and novelty in Indian patent law. The Supreme Court’s reasoning remains central to assessing patentability in India.

Patentability of New Form, Use or Property – Section 3(d)

Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act limits patentability for new forms or uses of known substances unless enhanced efficacy is proven. The Novartis case illustrates how courts interpret this provision, focusing on therapeutic efficacy rather than mere improved properties.

Morality and Patentability of Sexual Inventions

The Indian Patent Office often raises morality objections to sexual inventions, particularly in the context of devices and aids. This post analyses such objections, the legal framework under Section 3(b), and the shift towards constitutional morality post the Supreme Court’s 377 judgment. It highlights the need for consistent and rights-based evaluation in patentability decisions.

Patentability and Section 3(d), History of Patent Law in India, Patentability of Imatinib Masylate in Beta Crystalline Form – Novartis Case Abridged by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala

This abridged Novartis case by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala explains the patentability requirements under Section 3(d) of Indian patent law. It provides a structured analysis of the legal and practical issues surrounding the Imatinib Mesylate patent application.