Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellectual Property Tag

BananaIP Counsels > Posts tagged "Intellectual Property" (Page 6)

Grounds for Refusal of Trademark Registration – Part 1

This image depicts the 'Trademark' and 'Registered' symbols. This post is a part of a series on what marks are permissible as trademarks. Click on the image to read the full post.

This post was first published on 2nd July, 2014.   A trademark means a mark capable of being represented graphically, capable of distinguishing goods or services of one person from those of others. Hence for a mark to be registered as a trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it has to satisfy three requirements which include: It should be a mark It should be capable of being represented graphically It should be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others Apart from these requirements, a mark should not fall under any grounds for refusal of registration...

Continue reading

Revised Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Pharma Industry

This image depicts Tablets and Capsules of various colors. This image is relevant as the topic is about Final Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceuticals Published. Click on the image for more information

This post was first published on 22nd August, 2014.   The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) published the revised draft guidelines for the examination of patent applications in the field of Pharmaceuticals on August 12, 2014. The main intention of said guidelines was to bring in a uniform practice for the examination of patent applications relating to the Pharmaceutical field. Earlier in the month of February, the CGPDTM had published the draft guidelines with regard to this and had requested for comments and suggestions. The Indian Patent Office had also published the comments received which contained the views of various...

Continue reading

What NOT to DO While Applying for a Trademark

The image depicts the REGISTERED logo

  This post was first published on 22nd June, 2012.   1.    Have a business? Applying for a trademark is a sheer waste of time. You must already be busy with routine chores of the business. Thinking of adopting a mark and going through the entire process of getting it registered is just tiresome and unnecessary. Business will boom if it has to. 2.    If you are thinking of a name for your mark, trying to adopt a descriptive name as your trademark will be a good idea, i.e if you are selling oranges then the trademark you should adopt is ORANGE. 3.    Have you...

Continue reading

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

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.

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

Public Use Exemption for Patentability

This post was last published on July 18th, 2014.   Today we will take a look at two patentability cases with a very similar premise, the premise being if the public use of an invention bars its patentability. What these two cases have in common is only the premise, and with a little scrutiny, we will see how contrasting the cases actually were. 1. Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881) In the year 1855, Samuel Barnes, designed corset springs, i.e., the springs that hold a corset together, for his wife who had expressed her dissatisfaction with the existing corset binders that were not...

Continue reading

Novartis Case Review

  This Post was first published on 15th May, 2013.   NOVARTIS AG (APPELLANT) Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) Decided by the Supreme Court of India, CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 2013.   Brief Facts The Appellant, Novartis, filed an application for patent in 1998 for a crystalline salt form of Imatinib and its use in cancer treatment. It specifically claimed the methanesulfonic acid addition salt form of the compound, Imatinib, called as Imatinib Mesylate (commonly referred to as Glivac or Glivec), in its beta crystalline form, which is non-needle shaped, having better flow properties, thus better processible, less hygroscopic and more thermodynamically stable, thus better...

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