+91-80-26860414

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Patents

BananaIP Counsels > Patents (Page 3)

Another patent granted over medicinal value of Cow’s urine

This image depicts a heard of cows. This post discusses the patents that have been filed for the composition of cow urine and its uses. Click on the image to read the full post.

First Publication Date: 24th June 2010 A patent was granted to CSIR with respect to a composition useful for protecting and/or repairing DNA from oxidative damages. The value of cow's urine has been emphasized in ancient Indian texts including the rig veda. Cow's urine is known to not only have medicinal value but is also used to purify ayurvedic medicines. The patent granted to CSIR claims a composition for preventing and repairing damage to DNA due to oxidation. The patent abstract and the first claim has been provided hereunder for your reference: United States Patent 7,718,360 ________________________________________ Composition (RCUD) for protecting and/or repairing DNA...

Continue reading

Can a method of performing yoga be patented?

This image depicts a person in a yoga asana. His body has been divided into the traditional four zones targetted by yoga healing. This post explores if the way of performing yoga may be patented. Click on the image to read the full post.

First Publication Date: 9th June 2010 The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has recently incorporated materials on yoga to the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL). The materials include data on various yoga postures and videos relating to them. The information on yoga has been collected by CSIR from ancient Indian texts such as Patanjali. As per Dr. Gupta from CSIR, the addition of the materials to TKDL will play an important role in preventing patent grants relating to yoga in USA, Europe and other countries. The efforts of CSIR raise the question on whether yoga postures and processes can actually...

Continue reading

IP in everyday life – Godrej Tribolt

First Publication Date: 27th May 2010 I noticed this Godrej tribolt lock (which can be seen below) carrying prominent notices about the Intellectual Property related to it (seen below) The above notice is an example of a good patent notice, in that it complies with S.111(1) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970, which reads as In a suit for infringement of patent, damages or an account of profits shall not be granted against the defendant who proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable grounds for believing that the patent existed. A person shall not be deemed...

Continue reading

IP in everyday life – Aircraft seat belts

First Publication Date: 7th June 2010 Most of us fly frequently. But, we might not have paid attention to the most vital piece of safety equipment for a passenger; the seat belt. If you flip the receptacle portion of the belt, you will see a notice which states "Patent 5088160". The referred patent is assigned to Am-safe, Inc and was filed on February 5, 1990 (and has subsequently expired on February 5, 2010). The two independent claims are as follows: Claim 1: A webbing adjustor for adjusting and locking seat belt webbing which is anchored at one end, the webbing adjuster including a base...

Continue reading

Patent Agent Exam Results announced!! Congratulations!!

A very hearty congratulations to everyone who cleared the first round of Patent Agent Examination. The Indian Patent Office today has announced the Patent Agent Examination Result for the exam that was held on October 28th, 2018. The Controller General notified the public in a notification that the Patent Agent Examination would be held in two phases – Written round and Viva Voce. Over 4,000 applicants from across India appeared for the examination that was held across centers located in the cities of Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and RGNIIPM, Nagpur. As per the notification that was issued today, a total of 1473...

Continue reading

Synthetic cell: Patent or No Patent?

First Publication Date: 27th May 2010 After reading today’s article titled “Patent-run for synthetic life form could be ‘damaging’, says Brit scientist” I thought I was having a Déjà vu. Looks like, once again, history repeats itself. Have you ever wondered as to why every time there is a substantial progress in the field of Synthetic biology, we get mixed reactions. We are happy about the progress but when it comes to rewarding a patent to the inventors for the progress, we are reluctant. The saga began when Dr. Chakrabarty applied for a patent for his genetically modified Pseudomonas. It instigated the...

Continue reading

Patent: Natural or Man Made

This post was first published on April 4, 2010.   This is in furtherance of Mrs. Vinita Radhakrishnan's post regarding the US District Court decision on BRCA gene patents. Under the US Patent Law, anything that exists in nature is not patentable subject matter. This is also referred to as 'Product of Nature Doctrine'. The test for determining whether something exists in nature or not as laid down in Chakrabarty's case is whether a hand of man is involved in creating the invention. If there is a hand of man, the invention is said to be not naturally existing and therefore, patentable subject...

Continue reading

The Gene returns to its body

This post was first published on April 1, 2010.   I’m still in denial of the summary judgment ruling provided by Judge Robert W. Sweet of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO on March 29th 2010. Looks like all that I read, understood and got convinced about regarding gene patents demands a revisit. The 156 pages summary judgment that was issued on this Monday has for sure taken me by surprise. (I promise to provide the details of the opinion a bit later. I guess this is my time to...

Continue reading

Claiming with a purpose, with the blessings of the inventor

This post was first published on March 1, 2010.   Claims draw the boundary to the invention that is being claimed. The boundary that is being drawn must be carefully done in order to ensure that the claims serve their purpose. The point here is that every claim must have a specific purpose and must be targeted to a potential infringing product or process, or be targeted to protect a specific implementation (in case of defensive approach). In order for the practitioner to be able to do that, he must have a clear understanding of how a product or process is implemented...

Continue reading

Something more about Swiss type Claims

This post was first published on February 25, 2010. On reading Siddharth’s post on the 19th February decision (G02/08) from the Enlarged Board of Appeal regarding the Swiss type claims, I got motivated to write something about the Swiss type claims and the reason for its birth and death. Like in India, Method of Treatment and Method of diagnosis (in vivo) has always been non patentable subject matter in Europe (Article 52(4)). Furthermore, before the concept of Absolute Novelty was introduced by the European Patent Office, a Second medical use of a drug could not get any kind of protection due to...

Continue reading