Prior Art | Intellepedia

Patent Application Rejection Set Aside for Improper Citation of Withdrawn Prior Art

The Madras High Court overturned a patent rejection due to improper citation of withdrawn prior art, directing a fresh examination. The case highlights the necessity for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in Indian patent proceedings.

Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrack

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of a patent application for a portable vehicle management system, citing lack of inventive step over prior art. This case highlights the application of key Indian patent law principles on non-obviousness and inventive step, particularly regarding mosaicing and hindsight bias.

Refusal of a patent application based on prior art not cited in hearing notice set aside by the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal where the Controller relied on prior art not cited in the hearing notice. The decision underscores the importance of fair opportunity and proper analysis in patent proceedings in India.

Non-Obviousness and the Trilogy

This post examines the Supreme Court’s non-obviousness trilogy and its interpretation of Section 103 in US patent law. Key concepts such as prior art and the standard of ordinary skill are analysed, with a focus on legal clarity and accuracy.

The TSM Test and Non-obviousness

The TSM test is crucial for determining non-obviousness in patent law by evaluating whether prior art teaches, suggests, or motivates the invention. This structured approach ensures that only inventions demonstrating a significant leap in ingenuity are granted patents under Indian law.

Can Combining Contrivances Give Rise to Inventive Step? – An IPAB Case Note

This post reviews an IPAB decision on whether combining known elements in switch gears meets the inventive step requirement in Indian patent law. The case clarifies the threshold for patentability in combination inventions.

Patentability of Yoga- An Analysis

The post analyses the patentability of yoga under Indian law, stressing the importance of traditional knowledge documentation. It discusses the challenges India faces in protecting yoga and preventing misuse through patents abroad.

Anticipation – Mere Presence of Elements Insufficient; Arrangement of Elements Imperative

This analysis addresses the requirement for both the presence and arrangement of claim elements in anticipation under patent law, drawing from the Net MoneyIN v. Verisign case. The Federal Circuit clarified that combining separate disclosures within a single prior art reference is insufficient to establish anticipation.

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.