Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

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.

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?"

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

Learn how a system for concealing user addresses in online transactions was deemed patentable, distinguishing it from excluded “business methods.” Gain insights for navigating patent applications in the digital age. Continue Reading Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Refusal of patent application relating to 'Soluble Foaming Composition' set aside"

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Protein-free foaming innovation revived! Madras High Court overturns patent refusal due to Controller’s failure to address key arguments and consider crucial differences from prior art. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough analysis and considering applicant submissions in patent decisions. Continue Reading Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Madras High court provides clarity on Proof of right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different."

Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.

In this case, the Madras High Court sheds light on proving applicant’s right, emphasizing the difference between assignment and declaration dates. This case offers insights for smoother patent applications in India and is likely to provide much-needed clarity to Applicants and Controllers alike who often encounter the same or similar objections relating to proof of right under Section 7(2) and Rule 10 of the Patents Act. Continue Reading Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "by the Madras High Court"

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court supports three inventions by overturning three patent refusals on grounds of Lack of valid grounds (RTA-408 case), failure to consider inventive features (fluidized bed boiler case) and procedural error (fuel temperature control case). Continue Reading Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court"

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court overturned patent refusal for “Image Construction Apparatus” due to insufficient reasoning from the Controller regarding inventive step and Section 3(k). The Court criticized failure to consider the fact that the European Patent Office (EPO) had granted a patent based on the same prior art references and the disregard to analyze technical aspects per Section 3(k). Continue Reading Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High…

Read more

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

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

In this case the Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Controller of Patents refusing a patent application based on a ground not raised in the hearing notice. The refusal order was set aside as it lacked proper reasoning as required for inventive step analysis. Continue Reading Refusal of a patent application based on prior art not cited in hearing notice set aside by the Delhi High Court

Read more