BananaIP Counsels Logo

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…
February 17, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 235Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office's Order is Unreasoned - Says Delhi High Court

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

In a recent case involving Gogoro Inc, the Delhi High Court remanded a patent decision back to the patent office on the ground that the order was unreasoned. The Controller of Patents in the case rejected the patent application filed by Gogoro Inc relating to a power charging system on the ground that it lacked inventive step. The Controller cited three prior art references but failed to explain how a person skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed…
August 29, 2022 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1022Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on Patent Post grant opposition hearings

Post-Grant Patent Opposition, Evidence and Hearings: Role of Patent Office, Opposition Board, and Parties

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has reiterated the principles to be followed with respect to patent oppositions, and has once again explained the context, approach, and pace of such proceedings. The Court has reiterated the principles that have to be followed by the Opposition Board, Patent Office, and parties in opposition proceedings based on principles laid down in the Pharmacyclics case. While doing so, the Court emphasized the need to expedite post-grant opposition proceedings, and the need…
July 20, 2022 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 2507Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Case Brief: European Commission vs Union of Indian"

CASE BRIEF : European Commission vs. Union of India

Facts The Petitioner, the European Union filed two writ petitions seeking two of the orders passed by the Controller General of Patents to be set aside. The orders stated that two patent applications shall be treated as “deemed to be abandoned” under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970 (“Act”). The Petitioner, initially engaged a European law firm who then engaged a patent agent in India to prosecute their Indian Applications. Later in June, 2017 it engaged another European Firm…
July 13, 2022 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1548Views 0Like
Share

Read more

download

Denial of Opportunity to be Heard Violates Principle of Natural Justice

This post was first published on 16th July, 2014.   Today, we will take a look at a case where the IPAB ruled in favor of the appellant, remanding the case back to the Controller on the principle of natural justice! Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) (Appellant) v/s Controller General of Patents and The Assistant Controller of Patents (Respondents) Case: This particular order is in response to an appeal filed by Ericsson against the order passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting the…
July 25, 2019 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 868Views 0Like
Share

Read more

the featured image displays the words “Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016”. To read more click here.

Patent Amendment Rules 2016

  In furtherance to the National IPR Policy released on the 13th  of May 2016, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has issued a notification bringing the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 into effect from 16th  May 2016. Much of the content of the Draft Patent Rules has been maintained in the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 with some further additions. Our post on the salient features of the Draft Patent Rules issued in 2015 can be accessed here…
May 17, 2016 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 869Views 0Like
Share

Read more

The image is of a stop sign with a man screaming stop and his hand gesturing stop as the post is about the staying of all TM registry's abandonment orders by the Delhi High Court. To read more click here.

Delhi HC stays abandonment orders issued by the TM Registry

  As all of you may be aware, we have been covering all latest developments about the hasty mass abandonment of trademark applications by the Trade Mark Registry on a regular basis. As per the Registry, such action was taken due to the non-receipt of trademark responses to Examination Reports, within the statutory limit of 30 days. Earlier this week we reported about the public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents Trademarks and Designs stating the following- “It is…
April 6, 2016 Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 613Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Intellepedia - IP News Updates

Comments and suggestions on the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2015

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ("DIPP") issued a notification on October 26, 2015 publishing the draft Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2015 ("Draft Rules") seeking to further amend the Patent Rules, 2003 ("Patent Rules"). The notification dated 26 October 2015, published on IP India invited comments on Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2015. We have submitted our recommendations and suggestions to the Ministry and are awaiting to see positive changes in the proposed rules. In our…
December 2, 2015 Patents 0Comment 517Views 0Like
Share

Read more