In a recent case involving Gogoro Inc, the Delhi High Court remanded a patent decision back to the patent office on the ground that the order was unreasoned. The Controller of Patents in the case rejected the patent application filed by Gogoro Inc relating to a power charging system on the ground that it lacked inventive step. The Controller cited three prior art references but failed to explain how a person skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed…
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH vs The Controller Of Patents & Anr. on 12 July, 2022
Delhi High Court
Facts / Background
The Applicant, Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, had filed a National Phase PCT Application on 14th November, 2008, for 'Use of IV Inhibitors'. The patent specification had Claims numbered 1 - 18, with two claims numbered as 15, which were referred to as 15 and 15A.
The First Examination Report ("FER") was issued on 24th March, 2014, in response to…
On 2nd August, 2022, the Indian IP Office has opened up submissions for the NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AWARDS 2021 & 2022. As stated in the announcement the objective of these awards is:
“Objective:
National Intellectual Property (IP) Awards are conferred every year to recognize and reward the top achievers comprising individuals, institutions, organizations and enterprises, for their IP creations and commercialization, which have contributed towards strengthening IP eco-system in the country and in encouraging creativity and innovation. National IP Awards…
BananaIP is happy to launch the IP Cases Report for the year 2021. This report covers cases related to intellectual property decided by Courts in India, in the form of case notes. These case notes cover important decisions on critical questions of law and fact with respect to various species of intellectual property. You may download a copy of the report here. [Download PowerPoint Version] [Download PDF Version]
Structure of the Report
The Report is structured based on the primary…
After the establishment of the IP Division, the Delhi High Court has been clarifying different aspects of patent law through its lucid and well-written judgments. In a case decided on 12th July 2022, the Court has clarified and succinctly put together principles pertaining to the filing of divisional patent applications. While rejecting the validity of a divisional application including product claims pertaining to DPP IV inhibitors because the parent application included only use and process claims, the Court stated as…
Facts (with Timeline):
On 4th October, 2013, Novo Nordisk (hereinafter referred to as “Patentee”) was issued patent IN 257402.
On 29th September, 2014, which is five days prior to the expiry of one year from the date of grant, Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries (hereinafter referred to as “Opponent) filed a post-grant opposition to the issued patent IN 257402.
On 21st August, 2019, the Opposition Board provided its recommendation to the learned Controller.
On 25th September, 2019 and 26th September, 2019, the hearing…
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court gave clarity about how amended claims during opposition proceedings have to be dealt with by the Controller of Patents. In the case, four claim sets were filed by Novartis, the Patent Applicant, from the PCT filing stage, and the opponent in the case, NATCO, filed a pre-grant representation based on a pre-final claim set. Later, the claims were amended by the Patent Applicant, and a final set was submitted along with expert…
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has reiterated the principles to be followed with respect to patent oppositions, and has once again explained the context, approach, and pace of such proceedings. The Court has reiterated the principles that have to be followed by the Opposition Board, Patent Office, and parties in opposition proceedings based on principles laid down in the Pharmacyclics case. While doing so, the Court emphasized the need to expedite post-grant opposition proceedings, and the need…
Facts
The Petitioner, the European Union filed two writ petitions seeking two of the orders passed by the Controller General of Patents to be set aside. The orders stated that two patent applications shall be treated as “deemed to be abandoned” under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970 (“Act”). The Petitioner, initially engaged a European law firm who then engaged a patent agent in India to prosecute their Indian Applications. Later in June, 2017 it engaged another European Firm…
In a recent case decided by the Delhi High Court in Best Agrolife Limited vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Anr., the Court remanded an order of patent grant by the Patent Office for a fresh consideration because the order was legally infirm and unreasoned, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. The order was related to a patent application filed by GSP Crop Science, concerning a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron.
The Petitioner in this case, Best…