Blog

Introduction Madras High Court’s recent decision in Genmab A/S v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs clarifies the interpretation of Section 3(c) of the Indian Patent Act for synthesized non-living substances, especially monoclonal antibodies. This judgment provides a detailed explanation of why establishing the novelty or the technical advancement of an invention is a must […]

Introduction In a recent judgment dated March 19, 2024, in Genomatica Inc vs Controller of Patents and Designs, the Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal order issued by the Controller in respect of patent application No. 201747013084, in which the Controller had rejected the latest amendments to the pending claims, instead opting to examine […]

Introduction The Rule 137 of the Indian Patent Rules provides discretionary powers to the Controller to condone any irregularity in procedure for complying with the requirements of Indian Patent Acts and Rules. In a recent judgment of the Madras High Court dated April 4, 2024, in the case of R. Vishnu Prasad v. Controller of […]

Introduction In a recent judgement dated May 14, 2024, in Alimentary Health Limited vs. Controller of Patents and Design[i], the Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal order issued by the Indian Patent Office in respect of Indian patent application 3989/DELNP/2012, which had been denied, stating that the invention lacked an inventive step and […]

Introduction In a recent judgment dated February 23, 2024, in Mitsui Chemicals Inc. vs Controller of Patents [1], the Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal order issued by the Controller in respect of patent application No. 3877/DELNP/2009, which had been denied on the grounds of non-compliance with Sections 59 and Section 3(h) of the […]

Introduction The High Court of Delhi recently issued a significant decision in the case of InterDigital Technology Corporation & Ors. vs. Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. [1], which has substantial implications for patent litigation involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and the Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. It addresses critical issues such […]

Introduction The recent judgment in Google LLC v. Controller of Patents [1] by the High Court of Delhi emphasizes the critical nature of transparency and full disclosure in patent applications. Centered around Google’s patent for “Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices,” this case spotlights the stringent requirements of Section 8 of the Indian Patents […]

Introduction The Delhi High Court’s recent decision in Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v. The Controller General of Patents and Designs [1] reinforced the principle that the legal limits and scope of a patent are defined by its claims and not by the working examples provided in the application. This judgment is significant as it clarifies that […]

Introduction The Indian Patents Act provides mechanisms for challenging patent applications both before and after a patent is granted in the form of pre-grant opposition, post-grant opposition, and revocation procedures. Rich Products Corporation (RPC) vs. Tropilite Foods Pvt. Ltd (TFPL) exemplifies the complexities and procedural nuances of these opposition mechanisms. This blog explores the significance […]