Patent Rejection - Intellepedia

Patentability vs. Procedure: Finding the Right Balance during patent examinations

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Arcturus Therapeutics, overturning the Controller’s rejection of its patent application on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance should not override substantive examination, directing the Patent Office to reassess the application on its merits.

Frivolous inventions and abstract theories – Delhi High Court refuses patent appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application due to lack of novelty and a significant procedural delay of 701 days. The appellants, who had filed a patent application for black-colored wearables with claimed effects on human energy, failed to provide scientific evidence or technical merit. The court upheld the Indian Patent Office’s decision, emphasizing that abstract ideas are not patentable and reaffirming the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines for appeals.

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

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.

Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent application for AI-integrated persona augmentation. The Court ruled that the invention lacked sufficient technical detail, inventive step, and patent-eligible subject matter under the Patents Act. It upheld the Controller’s decision, emphasizing the absence of tangible technical effects and clear disclosure requirements.

Methods for Antibody Production in Genetically Modified Animals are Patentable; they are not covered under Section 3(i) Exclusion

The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of Kymab Limited’s patent application related to generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The Court found that the invention does not fall under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it is not a method for treating animals but a process for producing antibodies using genetically modified animals. The patent is now set to be granted.

A 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.

Cow dung lamp from Traditional Knowledge fails to light up patentability standards

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and traditional herbal leaves. The court upheld the decision, citing traditional knowledge and lack of inventive step.

Court Cranks the Clock Back on Opposed Crankshaft Patent Refusal

The Madras High Court remanded Pinnacle Engines Inc.’s patent application for their opposed piston engine, addressing inventive features overlooked by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court emphasized the significance of the crank offset and opposite crankshaft rotation in reducing friction and vibration, directing a reassessment by a different officer.

Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrack

The Delhi High Court confirmed the refusal of Mahesh Gupta’s patent application for a Portable Vehicle Management System, citing the lack of an inventive step in light of prior arts D4 and D5. The decision underscores important principles of patentability, including mosaicing, hindsight bias, and the criteria for non-obviousness.

Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.

The Delhi High Court recently highlighted the importance of clear and detailed reasoning in patent office rejections. In this case of Calm Water Therapeutics LLC’s patent application, the court found the initial rejection order by the patent office to be flawed as the revised claim was not considered and no detailed explanation was provided in the rejection. The court emphasized the need for the Patent Office to provide clear explanations and conduct thorough examinations before rejecting applications.

Tag: Patent Rejection