+91-80-26860414

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Patents

BananaIP Counsels > Patents (Page 9)

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

SWISS CLAIMS ARE HISTORY!

This post was first published on February 24, 2010. If the 19th February decision (G02/08) from the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) at the EPO is to be simplistically interpreted, “Swiss” Type claims are indeed history. As most of our readers must be aware of the nature of a “Swiss” type of claim language. A “Swiss” type claim is essentially used to cover the so called Second, Third and Subsequent uses/medical indications of a known substance or composition. Taking our readers a bit more than a decade back the EBA in its decision (G05/83) had allowed the use of Swiss type claims. The...

Continue reading

Intellectual Property: How can we encourage inventors to invent?

This post was first published on February 7, 2010. In one of my earlier posts entitled, 'Why do inventors invent?', I provided the results of a study on inventor incentives carried out by us. It can be noted from the results that a very small percentage of the inventors expressed that financial incentives encourage them to invent. The learning from the study is that an incentive mechanism must include incentives other than financial in order to encourage inventors to invent. Having said that, the issue with respect to it is that incentives that encourage an inventor such as love of invention,...

Continue reading

Patent: Story of an unchallenged Patent: Certainly Uncertain

This post was first published on February 16, 2010. Enabling designing around existing patents to promote progress of Science and technology forms a small but a non trivial part of the rationale behind existence of the patent system. To be able to safely design around patents it is critical to be able to understand the scope of protection rendered to that patent. The best place to start is the claims of patent since it determines the metes and bounds of the patented invention. Traditionally there have been two main approaches to drafting claims. One is the Central claiming approach and the other is...

Continue reading

Patents: Model to Combat Patent Risks in Open Source Software

This post was first published on May 10, 2010. Professors at University of California Berkeley are proposing a defensive licensing scheme to fight patent risks in development and use of open source software. In one of my earlier posts, I wrote about the risk of patent infringement with respect to use of open source software and steps to mitigate the same. The model being proposed by Professor Jason Schultz and Professor Jennifer Urban may play an important role in minimizing patent risks if it is adopted by the open source community. The model called as 'Defensive Patent License' is a distributed network...

Continue reading