BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out. Ericsson v. Lava case. Part 3

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3

Several aspects of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Licensing were discussed in the Ericsson Vs. Lava Case, and in this post, we will discuss three of those: Royalty Stacking, Hold Up, and Hold Out. Continue Reading Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3
1 day ago Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 40Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Google's Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Delhi High Court upholds decision against Google LLC in patent appeal, imposes Rs.1 lakh fine for misleading disclosure. Case delves into inventive step assessment, citing prior art and user preferences. Authored by Sowmya Murthy, Patents Team, BananaIP Counsels. Case Citation: Google LLC v. The Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 395/2022 Continue Reading Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed
4 days ago Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 28Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Ericsson v. Lava - Part 2

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

While Part 1 of the Ericsson vs. Lava post series covered the summary of the court's judgement, this post discusses the principles reiterated by the Court recently in the Ericsson vs. Lava case, for analyzing inventions in the context of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.  Lava filed a counterclaim against Ericsson’s patents in which Lava challenged that the inventions claimed by Ericsson fell under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. In particular, Lava had pleaded in its…
April 12, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 56Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Custom image for the post titled "Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) - Part 1"

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

In a comprehensive and extensive judgment, the Delhi High Court has recently adjudicated in favor of Ericsson in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The dispute was initiated by Ericsson against Lava over eight patents integral to the standards for 2G, Edge, and 3G technology implementations. Continue Reading Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1
April 8, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 67Views 0Like
Share

Read more

This image contains the following text: Mitsui Chemicals Inc. vs Controller of Patents. Section 3(h), Procedural adherence and Patent refusal.

Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.

The Delhi High Court, in a recent decision dated February 23, 2024, in Mitsui Chemicals Inc. vs Controller of Patents, overturned the patent refusal order issued by the Controller in respect of patent application No. 3877/DELNP/200. This decision underscores the significance of procedural adherence, especially in handling of claims during the national phase entry of PCT applications. Background/Facts Mitsui Chemicals (the Appellant) filed a PCT national phase application titled "Plant Disease and Insect Damage Control Composition and Plant Disease and Insect…
April 3, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 89Views 0Like
Share

Read more

All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents

All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents, a recent decision by Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court in a recent patent infringement dispute, held that ‘all-elements rule’ cannot be adopted to the exclusion of the ‘pith and marrow rule’. Facts: SNPC Machines (Plaintiff) sought a permanent injunction against Mr. Vishal Choudhary (Defendant) for manufacturing and selling brick-making machines which were similar to plaintiffs’ brick-making machines granted under patent nos. 353483, 359114, 374814, and 385845. Further, relief was also sought by the plaintiff for infringement of copyright in literature/ specification/ artistic features related to the…
March 27, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 81Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court"

Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc & Anr vs the Controller of Patents, accepted an appeal challenging the refusal order dated August 19, 2021, issued by the Assistant Controller in respect of patent application No. 2458/DELNP/2013. Brief Facts The patent application titled “Nonwoven Composite Abrasive Comprising Diamond Abrasive Particles” was filed before the Indian Patent Office on March 20, 2013. Pursuant to a request for examination by the appellant, a First Examination Report…
March 20, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 119Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration "

Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

The Delhi High Court has faulted the Patent Office for rejecting a patent application without adequate reasoning. The case involved a beverage can closure design, and the Controller’s decision lacked clarity and failed to address the applicant’s arguments effectively. The Court has sent the case back for a proper re-examination, highlighting the need for thoroughness in patent application reviews. Continue Reading Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration
March 18, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 128Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent Amendment rules 2024"

Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 come into effect, significant changes introduced.

The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent. Continue Reading Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 come into effect,…
March 17, 2024 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 113Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement."

Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.

The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent. Continue Reading Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case…
March 15, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 105Views 0Like
Share

Read more