Prior Art | Intellepedia

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Protein-free foaming innovation revived! Madras High Court overturns patent refusal due to Controller’s failure to address key arguments and consider crucial differences from prior art. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough analysis and considering applicant submissions in patent decisions.

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court supports three inventions by overturning three patent refusals on grounds of Lack of valid grounds (RTA-408 case), failure to consider inventive features (fluidized bed boiler case) and procedural error (fuel temperature control case).

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court overturned patent refusal for “Image Construction Apparatus” due to insufficient reasoning from the Controller regarding inventive step and Section 3(k). The Court criticized failure to consider the fact that the European Patent Office (EPO) had granted a patent based on the same prior art references and the disregard to analyze technical aspects per Section 3(k).

Non-Obviousness and the Trilogy

This post was first published on 5th December, 2014. The Supreme Court's non-obviousness precedent commenced with Graham v. John Deere Co., and its companion cases, Calmar v....

The TSM Test and Non-obviousness

This post was first published on 6th December, 2014. TSM test is the Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation test. It simply means, when analysing the obviousness of...

Informed Prior Art Analysis for Traditional Knowledge Based Inventions

This post analyses the challenges of prior art evaluation for traditional knowledge based inventions under Indian patent law. Dr. Kalyan discusses the importance of objective, informed assessment of novelty and inventive step, particularly when dealing with compositions derived from traditional sources. The need for evidence-based analysis over subjective objections is highlighted.

Patent Trolling : Can’t Live With, Can’t Live Without!

This article analyses patent trolling with a focus on the RIM v. NTP case and the difficulties innovators face in patent litigation. It highlights how procedural gaps between courts and patent offices enable trolls to exploit the patent system.

Can a Method of Performing Yoga be Patented?

This post discusses whether methods of performing yoga can be patented in India, considering both legal and practical barriers. It highlights the interplay between traditional knowledge and patent law, with reference to recent efforts by CSIR and specific patent examples.

Indian Patent Revocation: K. Manivannan, Vs. Shri M. Mani, Proprietor Valasumani Lathe Works

The Appellate Board dismissed the revocation request against Valasumani Lathe Works’ patent, finding no anticipation from prior art or abandoned applications. This decision clarifies key principles on anticipation and prior art for Indian patent law.

Case Review: Garaware v. Techfeb

This case review analyses the Garware v Techfeb patent, focusing on the specification’s drafting and the relevance of prior art. The post raises questions about the invention’s novelty and examines the omission of gabion systems in the background section.