Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

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

Image accompanying blogpost on "Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court. "

Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.

In this case the Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Controller of Patents refusing a patent application. The refusal order was set aside as it lacked proper reasoning as required for inventive step analysis. Continue Reading Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Method of producing 'protein enriched blood serum' is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court"

Method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’ is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court reviewed whether new objections can be raised at the hearing stage of a Patent Application. The Court examined the claims and the refusal order, from the purview of Principles of Natural Justice. Continue Reading Method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’ is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court

Read more

Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court

Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court clarifies the nature of product by process patent claims in the ferric carboxymaltose dispute between Vifor International and MSN Labs. Continue Reading Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court

Read more

Generative AI (GenAI), Business and Intellectual Property

Generative AI (GenAI), Business and Intellectual Property

Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala provides essential insights into IP for Gen AI startups, highlighting the importance of protecting innovations. His presentation explores various forms of IP, addressing protectability and enforceability issues, and proposes strategic approaches for leveraging AI creations, offering a roadmap for startups to navigate the complex IP landscape and capitalize on their intellectual assets. Continue Reading Generative AI (GenAI), Business and Intellectual Property

Read more