BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Image accompanying blogpost on "Opposition Locked Down?! Not really. Court extends Dr. Reddy's opposition deadline"

Opposition Locked Down?! Not really. Court extends Dr. Reddy’s trademark opposition deadline

Delhi High Court offered relief to companies who missed trademark opposition deadlines due to COVID-19, allowing Dr. Reddy’s and others to file opposition against ‘Razomax’. Continue Reading Opposition Locked Down?! Not really. Court extends Dr. Reddy’s trademark opposition deadline
15 hours ago Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 61Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Sufficiency of Disclosure - Ericsson vs Lava - Part X"

Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X

This post dissects the Sufficiency of Disclosure aspect in the Ericsson Vs. Lava case, scrutinizing the court’s assessment of Ericsson’s patents’ validity under Sections 64(1)(h) and 64(1)(i) of the Patents Act. Drawing from legal precedents and patent law, the analysis highlights how the court deemed Ericsson’s patents to meet the requirements, ultimately dismissing Lava’s grounds for revocation. Continue Reading Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X
2 days ago Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 109Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds"

Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds

The Delhi High Court recently ruled in favor of Calm Water Therapeutics LLC, highlighting the importance of transparent reasoning in patent refusal decisions. The Court’s observations underscored flaws in the Controller’s assessment, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive reasoning behind such refusals. Continue Reading Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds
4 days ago Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 121Views 0Like
Share

Read more

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
5 days ago Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 252Views 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 190Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent Term Travel : The 20 year term from the Date of Filing is constitutionally valid"

The 20-Year Patent Term from the Date of Filing is Constitutionally Valid

The Calcutta High Court scrutinized the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act. The Petitoner argued for recalculating patent term from the date of grant, contending the current provision as arbitrary. However, the Court upheld the existing framework, emphasizing legislative discretion and international compliance. Continue Reading The 20-Year Patent Term from the Date of Filing is Constitutionally Valid
May 9, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 213Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying a blogpost on "A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson's Eight Patents - Ericsson vs. Lava - Part VII"

A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

This post analyzes an Indian court case between Ericsson and Lava focusing on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. This section prohibits patents on mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs, and algorithms. The court evaluated the patentability of eight patents related to mobile communication technologies under Section 3(k). Continue Reading A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII
May 8, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 328Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Premier Injunction for the Premier League : Viacom knocks out IPL Pirates with Dynamic+ Injunction"

Premier Injunction for the Premier League : Viacom18 knocks out IPL Pirates with Dynamic+ Injunction

Viacom 18 Media Private Limited obtained a groundbreaking Dynamic + injunction from the Delhi High Court against rogue websites broadcasting pirated IPL matches. This legal victory ensures real-time protection of Viacom’s exclusive broadcasting rights. Continue Reading Premier Injunction for the Premier League : Viacom18 knocks out IPL Pirates with Dynamic+ Injunction
May 7, 2024 Case Reviews, Copyrights, Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law 0Comment 280Views 1Like
Share

Read more