Controller of patents Archives

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 469Views 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 786Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

In a recent case involving Gogoro Inc, the Delhi High Court remanded a patent decision back to the patent office on the ground that the order was unreasoned. The Controller of Patents in the case rejected the patent application filed by Gogoro Inc relating to a power charging system on the ground that it lacked inventive step. The Controller cited three prior art references but failed to explain how a person skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed…

August 29, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1369Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on Patent Post grant opposition hearings

Post-Grant Patent Opposition, Evidence and Hearings: Role of Patent Office, Opposition Board, and Parties

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has reiterated the principles to be followed with respect to patent oppositions, and has once again explained the context, approach, and pace of such proceedings. The Court has reiterated the principles that have to be followed by the Opposition Board, Patent Office, and parties in opposition proceedings based on principles laid down in the Pharmacyclics case. While doing so, the Court emphasized the need to expedite post-grant opposition proceedings, and the need…

July 20, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 3293Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

CASE BRIEF : European Commission vs. Union of India

Facts The Petitioner, the European Union filed two writ petitions seeking two of the orders passed by the Controller General of Patents to be set aside. The orders stated that two patent applications shall be treated as “deemed to be abandoned” under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970 (“Act”). The Petitioner, initially engaged a European law firm who then engaged a patent agent in India to prosecute their Indian Applications. Later in June, 2017 it engaged another European Firm…

July 13, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 2061Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Denial of Opportunity to be Heard Violates Principle of Natural Justice

This post was first published on 16th July, 2014. Today, we will take a look at a case where the IPAB ruled in favor of the appellant, remanding the case back to the Controller on the principle of natural justice! Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) (Appellant) v/s Controller General of Patents and The Assistant Controller of Patents (Respondents) Case: This particular order is in response to an appeal filed by Ericsson against the order passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting the…

July 25, 2019 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1251Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Patent Amendment Rules 2016

In furtherance to the National IPR Policy released on the 13th of May 2016, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has issued a notification bringing the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 into effect from 16th May 2016. Much of the content of the Draft Patent Rules has been maintained in the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 with some further additions. Our post on the salient features of the Draft Patent Rules issued in 2015 can be accessed here…

May 17, 2016 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1284Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

The image is of a stop sign with a man screaming stop and his hand gesturing stop as the post is about the staying of all TM registry's abandonment orders by the Delhi High Court. To read more click here.

Delhi HC stays abandonment orders issued by the TM Registry

As all of you may be aware, we have been covering all latest developments about the hasty mass abandonment of trademark applications by the Trade Mark Registry on a regular basis. As per the Registry, such action was taken due to the non-receipt of trademark responses to Examination Reports, within the statutory limit of 30 days. Earlier this week we reported about the public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents Trademarks and Designs stating the following- “It is…

April 6, 2016 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 976Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Comments and suggestions on the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2015

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ("DIPP") issued a notification on October 26, 2015 publishing the draft Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2015 ("Draft Rules") seeking to further amend the Patent Rules, 2003 ("Patent Rules"). The notification dated 26 October 2015, published on IP India invited comments on Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2015. We have submitted our recommendations and suggestions to the Ministry and are awaiting to see positive changes in the proposed rules. In our…

December 2, 2015 BananaIP Reporter Patents 0Comment 783Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

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

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

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

Post-Grant Patent Opposition, Evidence and Hearings: Role of Patent Office, Opposition Board, and Parties

CASE BRIEF : European Commission vs. Union of India

Denial of Opportunity to be Heard Violates Principle of Natural Justice

Patent Amendment Rules 2016

Delhi HC stays abandonment orders issued by the TM Registry

Comments and suggestions on the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2015

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us