Patents | Intellepedia

Intellepedia’s Top Patent Articles of 2025: A Year in Review

A concise roundup of Intellepedia’s most impactful patent law articles of 2025, highlighting key judicial and Patent Office developments every IP practitioner should note.

Patent Expired. Damages Pending. Game Still On for Philips.

A futuristic courtroom setting with a lone judge seated at the bench, surrounded by abstract digital circuitry and tech schematics. A glowing red waveform symbolizing signal modulation runs horizontally across the scene. In the top right corner, a prominent “DAMAGES PENDING” stamp reinforces the theme of unresolved legal claims related to expired technology.

Philips’ damages decree remains enforceable despite patent expiry, underscoring post-expiry enforcement rights under Indian IP law.

‘In Vitro Detection’ Still Diagnostic: Nematode Cancer Test Barred under Section 3(i)

Close-up of a dictionary page with the word “Diagnosis” highlighted in bright green by a chisel-tip highlighter, emphasizing the term against surrounding text.

In Hirotsu Bio Science v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court held that branding a process as “in vitro detection” does not rescue it from Section 3(i) when, in substance, it diagnoses cancer. The nematode-based urine test was thus refused as an excluded diagnostic method.

Shattering one order at a time – Court allows appeal against refusal of glass fiber patent

Close-up view of pink-tinted glass fibers arranged in parallel strands, showing fine linear textures and an iridescent sheen

The Calcutta High Court overturns OCV patent rejection, reinforcing ‘teaching away’ doctrine, inventive step analysis, and Section 3(e) interpretation.

Inventive Step Misjudged? Delhi HC Revives Trident’s Patent Application

Composite image showing a close-up of breathable maroon fabric, a cartoon panel of judges giving thumbs up, and colorful yarn balls representing air-rich yarn innovation in a legal patent context

Delhi HC revives Trident’s patent application, citing flaws in the inventive step analysis of its air-rich yarn invention.

Are Employment Agreements sufficient for establishing Proof Of Right?

Close-up of an employment agreement document on a clipboard with a pen placed on top, surrounded by office supplies on a textured surface.

Delhi High Court rules employment agreements valid as proof of right under Section 7(2), aiding patent filings involving deceased inventors.

You Can’t Park Patent Rights in the E-Ricksha Registration Lane

In the case of M/s Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors., the Calcutta High Court addressed whether claims of patent rights can prevent registration of e-rickshaws. The court ruled that vehicle registration authorities must act according to statutory rules, and pending patent claims do not automatically restrain registration.

Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step

In the case of TVS Motor Company vs Patent Office, a scooter maker’s patent claim for a simple yet novel frame design was rejected for lacking inventive step. The court disagreed with the reasoning and ordered the Patent Office to re-examine the application using a proper test.

Dr Reddy’s Semaglutide Exports to Continue as Court Denies Interim Relief to Novo Nordisk

Semaglutide injection pen with syringe surrounded by weighing scale, tape measure, dumbbell and fast food, symbolising weight loss and diabetes treatment.

The Delhi High Court refused Novo Nordisk interim relief against Dr Reddy’s, finding that the Semaglutide species patent faces serious validity challenges in light of the earlier genus patent. The Court allowed Dr Reddy’s to continue manufacturing Semaglutide in India solely for export to non-patent jurisdictions, with no domestic sales.

Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent Oppositions

In the case of M/s Hi Tech Chemicals Limited vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., the Madras High Court examined whether documents labeled as additional evidence could be admitted after the hearing was fixed in a post-grant patent opposition. The Court looked at the patent rules, and held that private documents do not qualify as “publications” under Rule 62(4), and are therefore not admissible after the hearing date was fixed.