+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellectual Property News and Analysis – Intellepedia

Anticipation – Mere Presence of Elements Insufficient; Arrangement of Elements Imperative

This post was first published on July 15, 2014.

 

How is the novelty of an invention established? Another question with a similar connotation is – How does one determine if an invention is anticipated? Simple. Let’s see if something exactly alike exists. Apparently, the district court of the District of Arizona didn’t think so.

We’ll look at a case that will put to rest a lot of doubts surrounding the anticipation of inventions. The case, Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008), decided in October 20, 2008, is where the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the test for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102(a).

The patents in contention mainly dealt with subject matter pertaining to systems and methods for online credit card transactions and for addressing security concerns related to these transactions. There were two main issues that were addressed by the inventor – 1. The requirement of prospective customers to send their confidential credit card information to an unknown merchant over the Internet; and

2. Banks that had issued customers’ credit cards imposed stringent requirements on merchants.

An In-Depth Look at the Trademark Registration Process – Part III

The image reads 'Trademark Registration and Protection' with a heap of Trademark signs in the backdrop. This post talks about the process of trademark registration. Click on the image to read the full post.

This post was first published on July 07, 2014.

 

In furtherance to the earlier post, related to trademark classification and search, we will now discuss the trademark filing process.

The procedure for registration of trademarks is contained in Section 18 to 26 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rules 25 to 62 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002. A trademark application should be filed in the office of Trade Marks Registry within whose territorial limits the principal place of business of the applicant is situated. In case of applicants who do not have a physical place of their business in India, the application should be filed in the office within whose jurisdiction the applicant’s address of service is located. State-wise jurisdictions for filing a trademark application are mentioned below:

The Non-Obviousness Requirement and its Evolution – Graham vs. John Deere

This post was first published on 16th July, 2014.

Today’s special is the case that has set a high precedent in US Patent Law practice, acquiring the status of the highest cited case in subsequent cases decided by several courts, especially the CAFC. Graham vs. John Deere Co. is cited extensively since it clarifies the judicial standing on the requirement of non-obviousness of an invention. William T Graham (Graham) sued John Deere Co. (Deere) for patent infringement.

Details: Graham invented a new shock absorber to add to tractors, essentially a device designed to absorb shock from the shanks of chisel plows as they plowed through rocky soil and thus prevented damage to the plow. Graham obtained a patent (US Patent 2,493,811) on this device.

Shortly thereafter, Graham made an improvement on this device and applied and obtained a patent (US Patent 2,627,798) for the improvement. Only 2 differences existed between the two patents, them being: the stirrup and the bolted connection of the shank to the hinge plate did not appear in 2,493,811 and the position of the shank was reversed, being placed in 2,493,811 above the hinge plate, sandwiched between it and the upper plate.

Common Reasons for Delay in Grant of Patent

This post was first posted on 20th July, 2o14.   A Patent gives its owner a monopolistic right and protection against unauthorized use of anything under its protection. This is the reason that a patent only gets granted once it passes several levels of stringent scrutiny. This phase is called the examination of the patent application. Examination of the application determines whether the patent application is worthy of a patent grant and thus, unless the application fulfills all patentabilty criteria, it does not receive a grant. For a patent application to be examined, a specific request has to be filed within a stipulated deadline, in accordance with the laws...

Continue reading

Patents May be Relatively New to Indians, but Inventions are Not

The image depicts a sack containing cotton seeds.

This post was first published on 10th March, 2014.   It gives the SiNApSE blog Team great pleasure to bring forth to our readers a 1971 US patent in which Mr. C. T. Dwarakanath from CFTRI, Mysore, was an inventor. Mr. Dwarakanath was a co-inventor in the patent entitled, "Process for reduction of aflatoxin content of oilseed meals by ozonization", bearing number 3,592,641. The invention was conceived and reduced to practice during one of his visits to Louisiana, USA on a project for the agricultural department during the years 1965-66. The patent was in fact assigned to the US Government, Department of...

Continue reading

Were the brothers (W)right?

The image depicts the Wright Brothers walking together.

This post was first published on 20th March, 2014.   Last week, my post was about the role of communication technology in making different regions of the world “excess able” from “access able”. It is important to bear in mind the role played by transportation systems in nullifying the effects of physical distance. Though different transportation means such as roadways, airways and waterways are available, when it comes to covering long distances in short time periods, aviation a.k.a. air transportation is one of the most convenient modes of transportation. The Wright brothers began efforts to invent a motor powered aircraft in the year 1899....

Continue reading

Inebriated @ 8

The image is a bottle of liquor 8 PM. The post is about a Delhi High Court decision about trademark in numbers. Click on image to view post.

This post was first published on December 22, 2011. In a very recent decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Radico Khaitan (decided on 20th December, 2011), a division bench revisited the ever debated question of trademark rights in numbers. A quick glance over the facts reveals that Radico has been the registered proprietor of the trademark '8 PM' for whiskey and other liquor. In February, 2011, Carlsberg launched Beer under the mark 'Palone 8' and as a result was sued by Radico (detailed analysis of the facts and earlier order of the...

Continue reading

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.

Is Coke’s Formulation Still a Trade Secret?

This image describes a can of Coca Cola. This image is relevant because this post talks about whether or not Coca Cola's trade secret is still a trade secret. Click on the image to view full post.

This post was first published on February 16, 2011. Coca Cola's secret formulation is the most cited example to elucidate the business value of trade secrets. Coca Cola has been taking stringent measures to protect the secrecy of its formulation and it is believed that the formulation makes it the most popular soft drink in the world. Recent news reports seem to suggest that Coke's formulation is not a trade secret any more. Alleged claims of a weekly public radio show broadcasting organization, the “Thisamericanlife.org” of finding the top secret recipe of making Coca Cola has created quite a stir. The guarded...

Continue reading

Myriad Genetics Case : Genetic Patentability

This post was first published on 19th August, 2013.   Finally, I have managed to read the Myriad Genetics case at peace. Off late, setting out to analyze the US Supreme Court's patent decisions has become a much easier task than earlier. Firstly, the Court has gotten clearer in the recent past, and secondly, it is no longer a one sided patent friendly Court. The decisions of the Court in KSR, Bilski, Mayo, and finally this case indicate that trend. In the backdrop, the decision in Myriad Genetics was not a surprise to a keen follower, and, upholds the inherent lacuna in...

Continue reading
Speak with an IP Expert Today
close slider
css.php