21 articles
Delhi High Court reviews whether the Controller of Patents could refuse Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl's sugammadex process patent without a separate Section 14 hearing, despite hearing a competitor's…
The Bombay High Court, in AIC246 AG & Co. KG v. The Patent Office of India, has set aside a patent rejection that bypassed the mandatory Section 14…
When the Bombay High Court dismissed a patent applicant's appeal after a Single Judge upheld the Controller's refusal, the applicant tried a second round before the Division Bench.…
In Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor of a food container invention. Although the Indian Patent Office refused…
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a simple patent lesson: mixing known compounds will not do unless the mix delivers something unexpectedly better. In Crystal Crop, the claimed…
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the Controller cannot collapse examination and pre-grant opposition into a single composite order to sidestep a Section 14 hearing. The decision…
The Delhi High Court confirmed that once a patent grant order is signed, a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) is no longer valid. This case involving Vertex Pharmaceuticals…
The Delhi High Court has confirmed that patent examination and pre-grant opposition are independent processes under Indian law. Pre-grant opponents are entitled to participate only on specific grounds…
The Bombay High Court in Safex Chemical India Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents clarified procedures for patent oppositions. The Court dismissed Safex’s writ, emphasising adherence to the…
The Delhi High Court has provided clear procedural guidance for patent opposition proceedings, focusing on transparency and fair opportunity for all parties. The judgment underscores the importance of…