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

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

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

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

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

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970."

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court overturned the Indian Patent Office’s decision to reject Imclone’s patent application for a monoclonal antibody to treat metastatic bone cancer. The Court disagreed with the Patent Office’s view that the antibody was merely “discovered in nature” and not an invention. Continue Reading Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Kannada Lyricist Hamsalekha Wins Copyright Case Against Saavn"

Kannada Lyricist Hamsalekha Wins Copyright Case Against Saavn

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of lyricist Hamsalekha in a copyright dispute against Saavn. Saavn argued that Hamsalekha doesn’t have the right to sue because he assigned his rights to IPRS, a copyright society. The Court disagreed as Hamsalekha retained the right to claim authorship and seek proper attribution even if IPRS licensed his works. Continue Reading Kannada Lyricist Hamsalekha Wins Copyright Case Against Saavn

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI"

Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI

The Delhi High Court dismissed Lava’s attempt to revoke Ericsson’s patents based on alleged misrepresentation. The Court highlighted the high burden of proof needed and found Lava to have failed to demonstrate intentional deceit by Ericsson. Continue Reading Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Former Employees can use the Diamond Colouring Technology of their Employer, confirms the Gujarat High Court"

Former Employees can use the Diamond Colouring Technology of their Employer, confirms the Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court upheld a lower Court decision denying an injunction to a diamond company (Sonani Industries) against its former employees who started a competing business using similar technology. The Court found the technology wasn’t confidential and employees can’t be restricted from competition. Continue Reading Former Employees can use the Diamond Colouring Technology of their Employer, confirms the Gujarat High Court

Read more

Connect with Us

BananaIP Counsels

No.40, 3rd Main Road, JC Industrial Estate, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

Telephone: +91-76250 93758+91-80-49536207 | +91-80-26860414/24/34
Email: contact@bananaip.com

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Checkboxes

© 2004-2024 BananaIP Counsels. All Rights Reserved.