Patents

Image accompanying blogpost on "CASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited"

CASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited

Facts (with Timeline): i) FMC Corporation and FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd. (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) were assigned Indian Patent No. 298645 (suit patent/IN’645) titled “Method for preparing N-Phenylpyrazole-1-Carboxamides.” ii) The suit patent disclosed a novel method for preparing anthranilic diamide insecticide compounds. The claimed method involves combining: a carboxylic acid compound of Formula 2, an aniline compound of Formula 3, and a sulfonyl chloride, to prepare a compound of Formula 1 (Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR)). iii) The Plaintiffs brought…

Read more

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office's Order is Unreasoned - Says Delhi High Court

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

In a recent case involving Gogoro Inc, the Delhi High Court remanded a patent decision back to the patent office on the ground that the order was unreasoned. The Controller of Patents in the case rejected the patent application filed by Gogoro Inc relating to a power charging system on the ground that it lacked inventive step. The Controller cited three prior art references but failed to explain how a person skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Divisional Applications cannot exceed scope of Parent Application: Delhi High Court"

Divisional Applications cannot exceed scope of Parent Application: Delhi High Court

Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH vs The Controller Of Patents & Anr. on 12 July, 2022 Delhi High Court Facts / Background The Applicant, Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, had filed a National Phase PCT Application on 14th November, 2008, for 'Use of IV Inhibitors'. The patent specification had Claims numbered 1 - 18, with two claims numbered as 15, which were referred to as 15 and 15A. The First Examination Report ("FER") was issued on 24th March, 2014, in response to…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Indian IP Office invites entries for National IP Awards, 2021 and 2022"

Indian IP Office invites entries for National IP Awards, 2021 and 2022

On 2nd August, 2022, the Indian IP Office has opened up submissions for the NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AWARDS 2021 & 2022. As stated in the announcement the objective of these awards is: “Objective: National Intellectual Property (IP) Awards are conferred every year to recognize and reward the top achievers comprising individuals, institutions, organizations and enterprises, for their IP creations and commercialization, which have contributed towards strengthening IP eco-system in the country and in encouraging creativity and innovation. National IP Awards…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Indian IP Cases Report, 2021"

Indian IP Cases Report, 2021

BananaIP is happy to launch the IP Cases Report for the year 2021. This report covers cases related to intellectual property decided by Courts in India, in the form of case notes. These case notes cover important decisions on critical questions of law and fact with respect to various species of intellectual property. You may download a copy of the report here. [Download PowerPoint Version] [Download PDF Version] Structure of the Report The Report is structured based on the primary…

Read more

Principles for filing Divisional Patent Applications in India

Principles for filing Divisional Patent Applications in India

After the establishment of the IP Division, the Delhi High Court has been clarifying different aspects of patent law through its lucid and well-written judgments. In a case decided on 12th July 2022, the Court has clarified and succinctly put together principles pertaining to the filing of divisional patent applications. While rejecting the validity of a divisional application  including product claims pertaining to DPP IV inhibitors because the parent application included only use and process claims, the Court stated as…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "CASE BRIEF: Novo Nordisk AS vs. Union of India & Ors."

CASE BRIEF: Novo Nordisk AS vs. Union of India & Ors.

Facts (with Timeline): On 4th October, 2013, Novo Nordisk (hereinafter referred to as “Patentee”) was issued patent IN 257402. On 29th September, 2014, which is five days prior to the expiry of one year from the date of grant, Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries (hereinafter referred to as “Opponent) filed a post-grant opposition to the issued patent IN 257402. On 21st August, 2019, the Opposition Board provided its recommendation to the learned Controller. On 25th September, 2019 and 26th September, 2019, the hearing…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings"

Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court gave clarity about how amended claims during opposition proceedings have to be dealt with by the Controller of Patents. In the case, four claim sets were filed by Novartis, the Patent Applicant, from the PCT filing stage, and the opponent in the case, NATCO, filed a pre-grant representation based on a pre-final claim set. Later, the claims were amended by the Patent Applicant, and a final set was submitted along with expert…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on Patent Post grant opposition hearings

Post-Grant Patent Opposition, Evidence and Hearings: Role of Patent Office, Opposition Board, and Parties

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has reiterated the principles to be followed with respect to patent oppositions, and has once again explained the context, approach, and pace of such proceedings. The Court has reiterated the principles that have to be followed by the Opposition Board, Patent Office, and parties in opposition proceedings based on principles laid down in the Pharmacyclics case. While doing so, the Court emphasized the need to expedite post-grant opposition proceedings, and the need…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Case Brief: European Commission vs Union of Indian"

CASE BRIEF : European Commission vs. Union of India

Facts The Petitioner, the European Union filed two writ petitions seeking two of the orders passed by the Controller General of Patents to be set aside. The orders stated that two patent applications shall be treated as “deemed to be abandoned” under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970 (“Act”). The Petitioner, initially engaged a European law firm who then engaged a patent agent in India to prosecute their Indian Applications. Later in June, 2017 it engaged another European Firm…

Read more