Patents Archives

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

May 8, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 843Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

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.

May 6, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 582Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

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 535Views 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 593Views 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 696Views 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 726Views 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 507Views 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 633Views 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 864Views 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 659Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

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

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.

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us