Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Madras High Court criticizes inconsistent patent examination in Industeel France case, emphasizing fair and thorough evaluation for inventors.

Patent examination should not kill the scientific temper of an inventor

The Madras High Court criticized inconsistent patent examination practices in Industeel France’s case, emphasizing the need for a fair and thorough evaluation process. The court ordered a de novo examination by a different Controller and stressed the importance of maintaining scientific temper. Continue Reading Patent examination should not kill the scientific temper of an inventor

Read more

Madras High Court clarifies that claim amendments in a patent application do not mean abandoning earlier claims. Learn about the court's decision in Genomatica Inc. vs Controller of Patents

New claims, Old claims, and Claim Amendments: Section 59 of the Patents Act

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court clarified that amending claims in a patent application does not imply abandonment of earlier claims. The court directed that decisions should be based on the amended claims. This analysis was part of Genomatica Inc. vs Controller of Patents case. Continue Reading New claims, Old claims, and Claim Amendments: Section 59 of the Patents Act

Read more

Monoclonal antibodies and Patents – How the Madras High Court interpreted Section 3(c)

Monoclonal antibodies and Patents – How the Madras High Court interpreted Section 3(c)

The Madras High Court clarified the interpretation of Section 3(c) in the context of monoclonal antibodies patent in Genmab A/S v. Assistant Controller of Patents. The court emphasized the importance of novelty and technical advancement for patent eligibility. Continue Reading Monoclonal antibodies and Patents – How the Madras High Court interpreted Section 3(c)

Read more