Patents Archives

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

May 3, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 523Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5

In this case, the Court has crystallized and reiterated several patent principles relating to patentability under Section 3(k), novelty, inventive step, infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), Exhaustion, FRAND royalty determination, and so on. Along with other principles, the Court has also outlined the principles for grant of actual costs. Continue Reading SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5

April 23, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 570Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

This post covers the aspects of infringement as discussed by the Delhi High Court in the Lava v. Ericsson case. The Court noted that the fulcrum of the dispute between the parties in this case was the issue of whether Lava was guilty of infringing Ericsson’s patents or not. Continue Reading Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

April 22, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 676Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out. Ericsson v. Lava case. Part 3

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3

Several aspects of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Licensing were discussed in the Ericsson Vs. Lava Case, and in this post, we will discuss three of those: Royalty Stacking, Hold Up, and Hold Out. Continue Reading Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3

April 19, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 695Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Delhi High Court upholds decision against Google LLC in patent appeal, imposes Rs.1 lakh fine for misleading disclosure. Case delves into inventive step assessment, citing prior art and user preferences. Authored by Sowmya Murthy, Patents Team, BananaIP Counsels. Case Citation: Google LLC v. The Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 395/2022 Continue Reading Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

April 16, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 491Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

While Part 1 of the Ericsson vs. Lava post series covered the summary of the court's judgement, this post discusses the principles reiterated by the Court recently in the Ericsson vs. Lava case, for analyzing inventions in the context of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Lava filed a counterclaim against Ericsson’s patents in which Lava challenged that the inventions claimed by Ericsson fell under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. In particular, Lava had pleaded in its…

April 12, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 618Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

In a comprehensive and extensive judgment, the Delhi High Court has recently adjudicated in favor of Ericsson in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The dispute was initiated by Ericsson against Lava over eight patents integral to the standards for 2G, Edge, and 3G technology implementations. Continue Reading Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

April 8, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 836Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

This image contains the following text: Mitsui Chemicals Inc. vs Controller of Patents. Section 3(h), Procedural adherence and Patent refusal.

Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.

The Delhi High Court, in a recent decision dated February 23, 2024, in Mitsui Chemicals Inc. vs Controller of Patents, overturned the patent refusal order issued by the Controller in respect of patent application No. 3877/DELNP/200. This decision underscores the significance of procedural adherence, especially in handling of claims during the national phase entry of PCT applications. Background/Facts Mitsui Chemicals (the Appellant) filed a PCT national phase application titled "Plant Disease and Insect Damage Control Composition and Plant Disease and Insect…

April 3, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 640Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents, a recent decision by Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court in a recent patent infringement dispute, held that ‘all-elements rule’ cannot be adopted to the exclusion of the ‘pith and marrow rule’. Facts: SNPC Machines (Plaintiff) sought a permanent injunction against Mr. Vishal Choudhary (Defendant) for manufacturing and selling brick-making machines which were similar to plaintiffs’ brick-making machines granted under patent nos. 353483, 359114, 374814, and 385845. Further, relief was also sought by the plaintiff for infringement of copyright in literature/ specification/ artistic features related to the…

March 27, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 541Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court"

Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc & Anr vs the Controller of Patents, accepted an appeal challenging the refusal order dated August 19, 2021, issued by the Assistant Controller in respect of patent application No. 2458/DELNP/2013. Brief Facts The patent application titled “Nonwoven Composite Abrasive Comprising Diamond Abrasive Particles” was filed before the Indian Patent Office on March 20, 2013. Pursuant to a request for examination by the appellant, a First Examination Report…

March 20, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 452Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

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

SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5

Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.

All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents, a recent decision by Delhi High Court

Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court

Connect with Us

BananaIP has been acknowledged as a women-owned enterprise, certified by WEConnect International.

Connect with us