BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Image accompanying blogpost on "Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) - Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX"

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX

This post covers the intricate legal analysis of Ericsson’s patents essential for 3G and EDGE standards, dissecting novelty and inventive step aspects. Delve into the court’s scrutiny of prior art arguments and its decision on each patent’s validity. Continue Reading Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX
May 13, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 259Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) - Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII"

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII

This analysis examines the novelty and inventive step of the first five patents (IN 203034, IN 203036, IN 234157, IN 203686, IN 213723) in the Ericsson vs. Lava patent case. Part A focuses on patents related to Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) speech codec technology (IN 203034, IN 203036, IN 234157). Continue Reading Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII
May 12, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 203Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration "

Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

The Delhi High Court has faulted the Patent Office for rejecting a patent application without adequate reasoning. The case involved a beverage can closure design, and the Controller’s decision lacked clarity and failed to address the applicant’s arguments effectively. The Court has sent the case back for a proper re-examination, highlighting the need for thoroughness in patent application reviews. Continue Reading Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration
March 18, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 174Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections."

Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.

The Delhi High Court recently highlighted the importance of clear and detailed reasoning in patent office rejections. In this case of Calm Water Therapeutics LLC’s patent application, the court found the initial rejection order by the patent office to be flawed as the revised claim was not considered and no detailed explanation was provided in the rejection. The court emphasized the need for the Patent Office to provide clear explanations and conduct thorough examinations before rejecting applications. Continue Reading Patent…
March 12, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 144Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blog post on "Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous "

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) must clearly and unambiguously articulate objections to patent applications. This case involved Microsoft’s patent application for “Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves,” which was rejected by the IPO for lacking inventive step and violating disclosure requirements. The Court found the IPO’s objections to be ambiguous and procedurally irregular, thereby stressing on fair hearings and proper communication during the patent examination process. Continue Reading Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in…
March 8, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 131Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft. "

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that rejected Microsoft’s patent application for “Message Communication of Sensor and other Data.” The Court clarified that the “person skilled in the art” (PSITA) used to assess the inventive step is not omniscient and cannot be presumed to possess the inventive solution claimed in the patent. Continue Reading PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.
March 6, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 151Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Refusal of patent application relating to 'Soluble Foaming Composition' set aside"

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Protein-free foaming innovation revived! Madras High Court overturns patent refusal due to Controller’s failure to address key arguments and consider crucial differences from prior art. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough analysis and considering applicant submissions in patent decisions. Continue Reading Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside
February 22, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 179Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "by the Madras High Court"

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court supports three inventions by overturning three patent refusals on grounds of Lack of valid grounds (RTA-408 case), failure to consider inventive features (fluidized bed boiler case) and procedural error (fuel temperature control case). Continue Reading Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court
February 21, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 238Views 0Like
Share

Read more

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 273Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image for Green Cross Holdings vs. Controller of Patents and Deputy Controller of Patents

Inventive Step of an Invention Analysed

This post was first published on 16th July, 2014. We will today discuss a case in the Indian Patent history that showcases how the IPAB and the IPO analyse the Inventive Step or Obviousness of an invention. Green Cross Holdings (Appellant) v/s Controller of Patents and Deputy Controller of Patents (Respondents) Case: This judgment, passed on June 18th,  2014 by the IPAB, was based on an appeal made by Green Cross Holdings against the order made by Deputy Controller of Patents on…
July 26, 2019 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 678Views 0Like
Share

Read more