BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

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 114Views 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 143Views 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 151Views 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 163Views 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 175Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections."

Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.

The Delhi High Court recently highlighted the importance of clear and detailed reasoning in patent office rejections. In this case of Calm Water Therapeutics LLC’s patent application, the court found the initial rejection order by the patent office to be flawed as the revised claim was not considered and no detailed explanation was provided in the rejection. The court emphasized the need for the Patent Office to provide clear explanations and conduct thorough examinations before rejecting applications. Continue Reading Patent…
March 12, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 115Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blog post on "Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous "

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) must clearly and unambiguously articulate objections to patent applications. This case involved Microsoft’s patent application for “Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves,” which was rejected by the IPO for lacking inventive step and violating disclosure requirements. The Court found the IPO’s objections to be ambiguous and procedurally irregular, thereby stressing on fair hearings and proper communication during the patent examination process. Continue Reading Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in…
March 8, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 93Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft. "

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that rejected Microsoft’s patent application for “Message Communication of Sensor and other Data.” The Court clarified that the “person skilled in the art” (PSITA) used to assess the inventive step is not omniscient and cannot be presumed to possess the inventive solution claimed in the patent. Continue Reading PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.
March 6, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 114Views 0Like
Share

Read more