High Court rules that “known substance” must be identified for applying section 3(d) objection
A controller had rejected DS Biopharma’s (DSB) patent application. The grounds of rejection, among others, were that the invention was barred under section 3(d), which precludes patentability of the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance that does not enhance the “known efficacy” of that substance.
Unravelling SEP Litigations in India that Impact the Communication Technology Industry
Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) have increasingly become a critical component for the communication technology sector, especially with the evolution of interconnected devices.
Intellectual Property Division: A Milestone in India’s IP Adjudication Framework
The abolishment of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) through the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 brought about a period of uncertainty in India’s intellectual property (IP) ecosystem. With this change, all appeals and revocation proceedings which were hitherto handled by the IPAB, moved to the High Court’s jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court pulls up the Trade Marks Registry for non-speaking orders
Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the TM Act) mandates that when a trademark application is refused or conditionally accepted, the Registrar must record in writing the grounds for such refusal or conditional acceptance and the materials relied on in arriving at the decision.
Delhi High Court to address conflicting views on Divisional applications
In Novartis AG v Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court dealt yet again with the validity of divisional applications considering the issue of plurality of distinct inventions.
High Court Bars Civil Courts from Deciding Validity of Plant Variety Registrations in Infringement Cases
In July, the Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (Pan) in an appeal against a District Court’s decision to dismiss Pan’s interim injunction application. Pan had filed a suit against Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Calcutta High Court Questions Controller’s Rejection of Fungicidal Treatment Method
In May, in an appeal made by Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V & Anr (Decco), the Calcutta High Court criticized a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Controller).
Verdict on Assessing Technical Contributions in Computer Patents
In a recent case of Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Microsoft filed a patent application in India in 2003, for an invention that enables secure user authentication when accessing network locations, thereby enhancing the network’s security and safeguarding it against potential breaches or unauthorized activities.
Assessing Technical Contributions in Computer-Related Inventions
In a recent case of Microsoft Technology Licensing,
LLC v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs,
Microsoft filed a patent application in India in 2003, for
an invention that enables secure user authentication
when accessing network locations, thereby enhancing
the network’s security and safeguarding it against
potential breaches or unauthorized activities.
In mid2016, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) issued the First Examination Report (FER) which raised objections regarding novelty, inventive step in view of cited prior art references (D1-D5), non-patentability of the invention under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (the Act) which relates to algorithm and the computer program per se, and the lack of clarity and conciseness regarding the scope of the claimed invention under Section 10(4)(c) of the Act.
Court Emphasizes Reasoning and SER Requirement
In June, Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd (Oppo), a leading electronics manufacturer,
approached the Calcutta High Court to appeal the rejection of their patent application in August 2022
by the Controller of Patents and Designs (Controller).
The invention related to a charging system, method, and power adapter for mobile terminals. It used a pulsating ripple waveform to achieve faster charging, cost-efficiency, and longer battery life while eliminating the need for an electrolytic capacitor in the adapter. The Court identified four key issues in this case and set aside the Controller’s order: