{"id":39003,"date":"2017-04-03T12:30:02","date_gmt":"2017-04-03T07:00:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/one\/?p=39003"},"modified":"2025-06-12T17:02:46","modified_gmt":"2025-06-12T11:32:46","slug":"indian-patent-cases-patentability-requirements-litigation-licensing-tips","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/indian-patent-cases-patentability-requirements-litigation-licensing-tips\/","title":{"rendered":"Indian Patent Cases, Patentability Requirements, Patent Litigation, Interesting patents, Patent Licensing, Patent Tips and more"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"This<\/p>\n

Indian Patent Cases, Patentability Requirements, Patent Litigation, Interesting patents, Patent Licensing, Patent Tips and more,\u00a0presented by the Patent attorneys and experts of BananaIP Counsels, India\u2019s Premier New Age IP Firm.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Patent Quote of the Week<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u201cA Patent is not a license to make money, it is a license to prevent others from making money.\u201d
\n– \u00a0Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala, IP Attorney<\/a>,\u00a0Author and Professor.<\/a><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Patent stats from the Indian Patent Office (27th\u00a0March 2017 to 3rd<\/sup> April 2017)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Activity at Patent office has marginally increased as compared to the previous week. Between 27th<\/sup> March to 3rd<\/sup> April 2017, 840 applications have been published which marks a 13.92% increase from the number of applications published the week before. In a seemingly usual trend, the Delhi Patent office has the highest number of grants published, subsequently followed by Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai.<\/p>\n

Early Publications<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

City<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

This Week<\/strong><\/td>\nPrevious Week<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage of change<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Delhi<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

11<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n45% decrease<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Mumbai<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

8<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n77.14% decrease<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chennai <\/strong><\/td>\n16<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n\n

11.11% decrease<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Kolkata<\/strong><\/td>\n1<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n\n

90% decrease<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Total<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n\n

56.62% decrease<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0PUBLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

City<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

This Week<\/strong><\/td>\nPrevious Week<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage of change<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Delhi<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

487<\/td>\n384<\/td>\n21.14% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Mumbai<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

165<\/td>\n94<\/td>\n43.03% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chennai <\/strong><\/td>\n130<\/td>\n132<\/td>\n\n

1.51% decrease<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Kolkata<\/strong><\/td>\n22<\/td>\n30<\/td>\n\n

26.66% decrease<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Total<\/strong><\/td>\n804<\/strong><\/td>\n640<\/strong><\/td>\n\n

20.39% increase<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

TOTAL PUBLICATIONS (Previous Week): 723
\nTOTAL PUBLICATIONS (This Week): 840
\nPercentage: 13.92% increase
\nPUBLICATIONS UNDER GRANT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

City<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

This Week<\/strong><\/td>\nPrevious Week<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage of change<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Delhi<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

157<\/td>\n151<\/td>\n3.82% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Mumbai<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

32<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n18.75% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Chennai <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

92<\/td>\n66<\/td>\n\n

28.26% increase<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Kolkata<\/strong><\/td>\n63<\/td>\n61<\/td>\n\n

3.17% increase<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Total<\/strong><\/td>\n344<\/strong><\/td>\n304<\/strong><\/td>\n\n

11.62% increase<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Number of Applications published based on applicant city: 27th<\/sup>\u00a0March to 3rd April\u00a02017<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai and Kolkata have collectively contributed to 15.95% of the total number of applications published this week. A maximum contribution of 68 applications comes from Mumbai. Hyderabad too has performed well this week, it has moved from the lower end of the table to the third position to tie with Bengaluru.<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Mumbai: 68<\/li>\n
  • Delhi: 20<\/li>\n
  • Bangalore: 16<\/li>\n
  • Hyderabad: 16<\/li>\n
  • Chennai: 11<\/li>\n
  • Kolkata: 3<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    DESIGNS<\/strong>
    \nThis Week: 284
    \nPrevious Week: 239
    \nPercentage of Increase in Registrations: 15.84% increase<\/p>\n

    Recent Indian Patent Cases<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Monsanto v. Nuziveedu – Patent Holder’s Termination of License is not Valid<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    In Monsanto v. Nuziveedu Seeds, the Delhi High Court held that Monsanto’s termination of its license with Nuziveedu for breach of contract is not valid as Nuziveedu did not breach the contract. The Court stated that non-payment of trade value by the licensee is not a breach because the Price Control Order and License Guidelines of the Government, which define specific license fee and provisions form part of the license between the parties, and the license stands modified to bring it in compliance with the Government order and guidelines. After reading the regulations into the license, the Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that the license has not been breached, therefore valid, making Nuziveedu’s use of Monsanto’s patents and trade marks non-infringing. An analysis of this case will be published on Intellepedia shortly.<\/p>\n

    Patentability Requirements<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Prior Art Modification is not permissible for Anticipation<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    In ‘In re Chudik,’ the US Federal Circuit held that modification or changing a prior art is not permissible for assessing anticipation of an invention. While dealing with an invention relating to a Glenoid Implant, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s decision to remove an element from one prior art, and modify another prior art to\u00a0 come to the conclusion that the invention lacked novelty. In line with well established jurisprudence, anticipation continues to be a mathematical determination.<\/p>\n

    It is an Abstract Idea; Not Patentable Subject Matter<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    In Icon v. Polar, a District Court in Utah held a patent relating to a method and system for collecting data from subjects, evaluating the same and providing feedback to be ineligible subject matter. As per the patent in question, the feedback could be in the form of inputs to teachers about interest of students, to musicians about excitement levels of audience, etc. The system collects data from people using conventional technology, processes the same and provides notifications. The District Court held that the invention is an abstract idea\u00a0 well known\u00a0 to\u00a0 the public, and pointed out that use of censors, uniquely distributed databases, and computers do not transform the said abstract idea into a patentable invention. This is more or less the approach Indian Patent Office takes these days.<\/p>\n

    Patent Litigation<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Biogen scores a win at PTAB for its multiple sclerosis drug, Tecfidera<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    In an interference proceeding before the US Patent and Trade Mark Appellate Board (PTAB) with respect to Biogen’s best selling multiple sclerosis drug, Tecfidera, the PTAB held\u00a0 Forward Pharma’s patents to be invalid based on inadequacy of written description. Biogen and Forward Pharma recently entered into a license agreement with a non-refundable, lumpsum royalty of 1.25 billion dollars, and the success of this proceeding will define the nature of license and the running royalty payable by Forward Pharma. If Forward Pharma fails on appeal, the license will be a co-exclusive one with a one percent royalty rate, and if it succeeds, the license will be an exclusive one with a ten percent royalty rate.<\/p>\n

    Uniloc sues Google and Amazon<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    IP Watch Dog has reported that Uniloc has filed patent suits against Google and Amazon in the District Court of Eastern District of Texas. Uniloc is alleging that Google’s Allo App infringes its patents relating to instant voice messaging. The complaint against Amazon’s Chime alleges infringement of its voice conferencing patents. With these suits, Uniloc’s patent suits have risen to 49, one short of half a century.<\/p>\n

    Patent Licensing<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    High Efficiency Video Coding Patent License Platform Launched<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    Velos Media has launched a platform to license High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) patents held by companies like Ericsson, Qualcomm,\u00a0 and Sony. HEVC technology enables faster downloading, video viewing at low bandwidths and reduces buffering issues. The Standard Essential Patents relating to HEVC will be available on the platform on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms.<\/p>\n

    Software for Patent Professionals<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Citation Eagle for Opposition and Infringement Watch<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    Practice Insight has launched a software called ‘Citation Eagle’ for providing potential Opposition and\u00a0 infringement alerts and updates. The software filters patent data from around ninety countries and provides opposition\/infringement analytics in simple language. The software will be helpful for attorneys to watch and monitor patent risks and tackle them\u00a0 at the right time.<\/p>\n

    Interesting Patents<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Apple’s Patent for Driver Safety<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Apple recently received a US Patent, which tracks if a person is driving or not based on motion of his wearable devices, and changes the mobile device settings to enhance safety. The invention will track gravity and velocity to arrive if the person is in a moving vehicle, and if she is driving. The invention uses existing sensors in wearable devices, and needs no additional hardware. Thousands of accidents occur every year due to distracted drivers, and removal of mobile distraction when implemented will be a welcome step for Apple device users.this is implemented.<\/p>\n

    Samsung patents secondary dial display on smart watch<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    The patent, with application no. 15\/073,474 titled \u201cDisplay Device and Smart Watch\u201d describes a wearable with two displays. It discloses an additional circular screen squeezed in to the outside edge of the bezel of the watch. The additional display would provide \u201csimple information, such as a current date, a current weather, a song currently being played etc\u201d. This will also help in conserving battery when the main face of the watch is off.<\/p>\n

    However, a patent does not promise the product release, let\u2019s hope that these inventions will succeed to impress the design world.<\/p>\n

    BananaIP’s Patent Tip of the Week<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Building a Competitive Patent Portfolio<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    Building a strong and competitive patent portfolio requires vision, commitment and tons of hard work. A patent portfolio that can provide business and competitive advantage does not emerge out of the blues, it needs careful planning, dedicated implementation, and tough decisions. Commitment from the senior management to the cause\u00a0 will make a big difference to the\u00a0 patent attorney’s efforts.<\/p>\n

    The featured image is the property of BananaIP Counsels and it must not\u00a0be used without prior permission.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    This post provides an analytical overview of Indian patent cases, patentability standards, and litigation trends, supported by detailed statistics and key court decisions. It also examines patent licensing practices and offers practical tips for developing a strong patent portfolio.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":8,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,14],"tags":[163,5,2982,127,158,490,310,112],"class_list":["post-39003","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-patents","tag-indian-patent-law","tag-intellectual-property","tag-patent-cases-2","tag-patent-licensing","tag-patent-litigation","tag-patent-portfolio","tag-patent-statistics","tag-patentability"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39003","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39003"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39003\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":135687,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39003\/revisions\/135687"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39003"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39003"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39003"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}