Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Patents

BananaIP Counsels > Patents (Page 55)

Patentability of Laws of Nature

This image depicts the Court Hammer. This image is relevant as patent has been rejected for the Laws of Nature. Click on the image for more information

Today we will discuss a case where a patent was rejected based on the patent ineligible subject matter.

Mayo Collaborative Services (Appellants) and Prometheus Laboratories (Respondents)

Patents in Dispute: US 6,355,623 and US 6,680,302

Case: Prometheus had an exclusive license over these patents and Mayo was using diagnostic kits based on these patents from Prometheus until 2004 after which Mayo developed its own diagnostic tests for the same purpose. Prometheus sued Mayo for infringement at the District Court in 2004.

The claims of the patents were directed to a method of treating a patient with auto-immune gastrointestinal disorder by determining the level of metabolite produced subsequent to drug administration thus optimizing the dose of the drug to be administered.

From Dress Pin to Safety Pin: A ‘Pin’teresting Story!

This image depicts a Safety-Pin. This image is relevant as the post is about the evolution from Dress pin to Safety Pin. Click on this image for more information

Inventive step / Non-Obviousness is one of the most important patentability criteria in almost all patent jurisdictions. Non-obviousness is the term used by the USPTO and is codified in 35 USC § 103. The requirement is that the claimed invention being patented should not be obvious, meaning that a “person having ordinary skill in the art” should not be able to easily guess or put two or more things together to arrive at the invention seeking a patent  grant.

Now, let’s discuss the Inventive step / Non-Obviousness criteria with an interesting example relating to the Dress Pin invention wherein an improved patent relating to the Safety Pin is confirmed as having inventive step in comparison with prior art inventions.

Father of the Electronic Idiot Box

This image depicts Philo Fransworth with a Television of the medieval era. This image is relevant as the post is about patent of the Idiot Box. Click on this image for more information

Mr. Fransworth is regarded as the Father of Television. I would rename him as Father of Electronic Television, as most of us, including me, have learned in our school days that Mr. John Logie Baird is the Father of Television. The truth is Mr. Baird’s television was based on electro-mechanical systems, whereas Mr. Fransworth’s television was electronic. Mr. Fransworth showed glimpses of his brilliance since childhood by describing and diagramming a television in 1921, when he was just 14 years old. After dropping out of college due to adverse financial conditions, at the age of 20, Mr. Fransworth resumed his scientific work.

Fleeting Life of Exclusive Marketing Rights and the Birth of a Stronger Patent Regime

This image depicts a signboard having CHANGE written on it. This image is relevant as India's patent Law has changed a lot after it became signatory to TRIPS. Click on this image for more information

Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO) came into effect in 1995 mandating all the developing member countries to bring in TRIPS-compliant national laws within ten years i.e., 2005.

India became a party to the TRIPS Agreement in April, 1994. At that time, India’s then-current enactment of the Patent Act, 1970 directly contravened Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement. Upon coming into effect on January 1, 1995, TRIPS set out transitional periods for WTO members to introduce legislation complying with the obligations under TRIPS.

For developing countries, like India, the deadline for complying with TRIPS was the year 2000. Article 65.4 of TRIPS provided a special transitional provision for those countries that did not grant product patents. The provision provided an additional five years (until 2005), from the initial TRIPS transitional period, to introduce product patent protection.

Copyright: Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs – Part III

In continuation to the previous post in this series, we will today be looking into copyright protection of computer software. As discussed in the previous post, Copyright Law came as an answer to the protection of computer programs at a time when the importance of Trade Secret Law for the same was dwindling.

A computer program, being composed of source codes can be brought under the ambit of literary works in Copyright Law. The basic principle governing Copyright Law is the idea / expression dichotomy. As per this principle, Copyright Law only protects the expression of ideas and not the ideas per se. While talking about the principle of the idea / expression dichotomy, it should be admitted that there has always been a lack of clarity regarding what constitutes an idea and what constitutes an expression. This inherent lack of clarity in Copyright Law combined with the complexity of a computer program prevents Copyright Law from being an effective system of protection.

Sound CAPTCHA – Patents for the Blind 3

This image depicts Sound Captcha written over it with a red color background. This image is relevant as A patent granted to Towson University was granted this patent to validate captcha for blind person using their voice. Click on this image for more information

At one point, access to technology, especially the Internet, was only a dream for the visually disabled. For a long time, online tools were not accessible owing to either the lack of availability or high cost. But today, popular screen reading software applications like Job Access With Speech (JAWS) and open source screen reading software applications like NVDA are available for free. These applications allow a blind person to access a computer and perform several of its functions without the need of a screen!

Accessing the Internet was initially not very easy, but as days passed several modules were added to screen readers, and now, almost 50% of the Internet, especially the text based part, is accessible to the blind. Among the accessible websites, one common roadblock encountered by the visually disabled is the CAPTCHA.

CAPTCHA, Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart, is a method used to prevent automated programs from accessing secure websites. CAPTCHA normally displays an image, the data in which must be manually entered into another text box to authenticate a human user. Though Google’s RE-CAPTCHA provides an audio alternative, its success rate is less than 50%. I used this several times, and succeeded only once.

Threatened Co-existence of Breeders Rights and Patent Rights

This image depicts two people trying to join a puzzle. This image is relevant as their is a threat to the co-existence of the Breeder's rights and patent rights. Click on this image for more information

This post was last published on September 1st, 2014.

 

Innovation has always been focused on existing plant varieties which scientists use for improvements and for which breeders’ exemption (the right to use protected plant varieties in their research and claim ownership of the results) is granted. But patents don’t provide for a breeders’ exemption and researchers will have to pay for access to patented materials used in their research if they are allowed access at all. Patent stacking has become common practice – it refers to taking out patents for different aspects of a single innovation, forcing several royalty applications and payments.

From the very beginning Plant Variety Protection Law has contained a special provision that the breeder’s rights shall not extend to acts done for the purpose of breeding, or discovering and developing other plant varieties. It already appeared in Art. 5(3) of the 1961 UPOV Convention and can still be found in Art. 15(1)(iii) of the 1991 UPOV Convention and in Art. 15(c) of Regulation 2100/94 on Community Plant Variety Rights [1994] OJ L227/1. It speaks for itself that this rule has also been laid down in many national Plant Variety Protection regulations ever since.

Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs – Part I

A computer program is an intellectual creation and can be protected by Intellectual Property (IP) Law, particularly by Copyright and Patent Laws. The manner of IP protection for computer programs is a hot topic of debate, primarily due to the fact that current IP regimes are not effective in dealing with their protection comprehensively. There is a lot of ambiguity with regard to their protection because of the technical complexities in computer programs and the difficulty in integrating them with existing IP laws.

Software does not fit comfortably into established legal categories. For instance, there is a lot of confusion when it comes to allowing protection of software under the Copyright Law without extending the copyright protection to ideas, and the scope of Patent protection of computer programs, as such, is opposed to its protection of computer-implemented inventions. Thus, these IP regimes seem to be unsuccessful in providing effective protection to computer programs, resulting in the need for the establishment of a more practical mechanism for this purpose.

Misunderstood World of Patents!

The concept of law or the legal system is not new. But when someone says “I work in Intellectual Property Law, as a Patent Advocate,” he is often met with a look of incredulity. The path of Patents is less traveled and it is no surprise that there are several misconceptions regarding Patents in the mind of the layman. Here’s unraveling some of the most common myths about Patents.

1. I’ve got an Idea. I should get a patent.

This is a very common misconception about patents. Patents are not granted to merely ideas. To patent an idea, there must be some form of material embodiment of the idea. It must be transformed into a process or product so that it manifests as an invention to the Patent Office.

Sound Sign Posts – Patents for the Blind 2

This image depicts a blind woman holding a stick and walking on a road. This image is relevant as a patent has been awarded for vibrating clothes which will help the blind person to navigate easily. Click on this image for more information

Last week we discussed the talking walking stick innovation. Today, I am here with another patent, brought to my attention by the reliable, Naveen. Banking on certain patents to navigate your way through the world, is not an uncommon feature in knowledge driven industries and I embark on a mission to learn a few tricks. This patent, filed in 2008, by Universidade Do Porto, Portugal, seems to be an outcome of Academic Research.

The Guidance, navigation and information system especially adapted for blind or partially sighted people (US 20110172907 A1) patent aims to provide sound sign posts for the blind. The Abstract reads as follows:

css.php
Speak with an IP Expert Today
close slider