Patents Archives | Page 8 of 111

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) must clearly and unambiguously articulate objections to patent applications. This case involved Microsoft’s patent application for “Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves,” which was rejected by the IPO for lacking inventive step and violating disclosure requirements. The Court found the IPO’s objections to be ambiguous and procedurally irregular, thereby stressing on fair hearings and proper communication during the patent examination process. Continue Reading Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in…

March 8, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 373Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Courts Weigh on Inordinate Delay in Patent Orders and Scope of Claim Amendments

Delhi and Madras High Courts overturned patent refusals for ‘Theta Defensins’ and due to a 6-year delay, setting precedents on amendments and timely decisions. Continue Reading Courts Weigh on Inordinate Delay in Patent Orders and Scope of Claim Amendments

March 7, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 376Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that rejected Microsoft’s patent application for “Message Communication of Sensor and other Data.” The Court clarified that the “person skilled in the art” (PSITA) used to assess the inventive step is not omniscient and cannot be presumed to possess the inventive solution claimed in the patent. Continue Reading PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

March 6, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 569Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (February 23rd to March 1st)

9th issue of the Indian Patent Journal (1st March 2024) features 1,529 patent publications, 3,341 grants, and 735 registered designs. Continue Reading Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (February 23rd to March 1st)

March 5, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patent & Design Statistics, Patents 0Comment 402Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (February 16th to 23rd)

8th issue of the Indian Patent Journal (23rd February 2024) features 2,222 patent publications, 2,883 grants, and 922 registered designs. Continue Reading Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (February 16th to 23rd)

March 4, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patent & Design Statistics, Patents 0Comment 540Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

Learn how a system for concealing user addresses in online transactions was deemed patentable, distinguishing it from excluded “business methods.” Gain insights for navigating patent applications in the digital age. Continue Reading Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

February 26, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 406Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Protein-free foaming innovation revived! Madras High Court overturns patent refusal due to Controller’s failure to address key arguments and consider crucial differences from prior art. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough analysis and considering applicant submissions in patent decisions. Continue Reading Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

February 22, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 391Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "Madras High court provides clarity on Proof of right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different."

Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.

In this case, the Madras High Court sheds light on proving applicant’s right, emphasizing the difference between assignment and declaration dates. This case offers insights for smoother patent applications in India and is likely to provide much-needed clarity to Applicants and Controllers alike who often encounter the same or similar objections relating to proof of right under Section 7(2) and Rule 10 of the Patents Act. Continue Reading Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of…

February 21, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 670Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "by the Madras High Court"

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court supports three inventions by overturning three patent refusals on grounds of Lack of valid grounds (RTA-408 case), failure to consider inventive features (fluidized bed boiler case) and procedural error (fuel temperature control case). Continue Reading Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

February 21, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 556Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court"

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court overturned patent refusal for “Image Construction Apparatus” due to insufficient reasoning from the Controller regarding inventive step and Section 3(k). The Court criticized failure to consider the fact that the European Patent Office (EPO) had granted a patent based on the same prior art references and the disregard to analyze technical aspects per Section 3(k). Continue Reading Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High…

February 17, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 716Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

Courts Weigh on Inordinate Delay in Patent Orders and Scope of Claim Amendments

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (February 23rd to March 1st)

Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (February 16th to 23rd)

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us