The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.
Read more about Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiteratesTag: Patent Refusal
Madras High Court Overturns Patent Refusal under section 3(d), Reiterates Importance of Reasoned Orders and Natural Justice
The Madras High Court overturned the Controller’s refusal of Intervet International’s patent application, underscoring the importance of natural justice and reasoned orders in patent proceedings. The case involved complex issues under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, with the Court remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Read more about Madras High Court Overturns Patent Refusal under section 3(d), Reiterates Importance of Reasoned Orders and Natural JusticeBlackberry blacks out in case relating to patentability of algorithmic processes
This article analyzes India’s legal stance on the patentability of algorithmic processes under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Focusing on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Blackberry Limited vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the post explores key arguments, legal precedents, and implications for software patents in India.
Read more about Blackberry blacks out in case relating to patentability of algorithmic processesSection 3(j), Essentially biological processes and human intervention
The Madras High Court remanded Sakata Seed Corporation’s patent application, focusing on the human intervention in biological processes under Section 3(j). The Court found that the Applicant’s arguments regarding human intervention were not sufficiently addressed by the Patent Office, leading to a fresh review of the case.
Read more about Section 3(j), Essentially biological processes and human interventionA doped order on method of doping, court clarifies
The Madras High Court confirmed the Patent Office’s rejection of IIT Madras’s patent for a method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate. The Court agreed with the rejection based on Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, but noted procedural shortcomings in the handling of the case.
Read more about A doped order on method of doping, court clarifiesGreen Cross Crosses court’s bridge to win appeal
The Madras High Court has revoked the refusal of Green Cross’ patent application for a Hepatitis B immunoglobulin agent, citing errors in the Controller’s analysis. The court has remanded the matter to the patent office for a fresh examination, ordering a review of the claims within four months.
Read more about Green Cross Crosses court’s bridge to win appealCourt balances Hygieia’s patent application after IPO disbalances it under section 59
The Madras High Court has set aside the refusal of Hygieia Inc.’s patent application, highlighting the need for proper consideration of amended claims. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting claims in conjunction with their specifications and has directed a re-examination of the application by a different controller within six months.
Read more about Court balances Hygieia’s patent application after IPO disbalances it under section 59Inventive Step Assessment: To be Anchored in Knowledge of a Person with Ordinary Skill on the Priority Date
The Delhi High Court overturned the patent refusal for Alimentary Health’s probiotic formulation, emphasizing the need for an objective analysis of inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970. The Court criticized the Patent Office’s decision and highlighted the importance of avoiding hindsight bias in evaluating patent applications.
Read more about Inventive Step Assessment: To be Anchored in Knowledge of a Person with Ordinary Skill on the Priority DateVictory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s Refusal
The Madras High Court, in a decision dated March 19, 2024, set aside a patent refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in the case of a patent application filed by Novozymes A/S. This post summarizes the decision of the court in this case.
Read more about Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s RefusalTransparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds
The Delhi High Court recently ruled in favor of Calm Water Therapeutics LLC, highlighting the importance of transparent reasoning in patent refusal decisions. The Court’s observations underscored flaws in the Controller’s assessment, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive reasoning behind such refusals.
Read more about Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds