Inventive Step Archives | Page 2 of 3

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 712Views 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 441Views 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 647Views 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

Image for Green Cross Holdings vs. Controller of Patents and Deputy Controller of Patents

Inventive Step of an Invention Analysed

This post was first published on 16th July, 2014. We will today discuss a case in the Indian Patent history that showcases how the IPAB and the IPO analyse the Inventive Step or Obviousness of an invention. Green Cross Holdings (Appellant) v/s Controller of Patents and Deputy Controller of Patents (Respondents) Case: This judgment, passed on June 18th, 2014 by the IPAB, was based on an appeal made by Green Cross Holdings against the order made by Deputy Controller of Patents on…

July 26, 2019 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1037Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Inventive Step – Technical Advance

This post was published on 18th September, 2013. In a recent case decided by the IPAB at a circuit sitting bench in Delhi on 5th July 2013, the Appellant (Electronic Navigation Research Institute, Tokyo) claimed that it had invented “A Chaos Theoretical Exponent Value Calculation system” and applied for patent under 3624/DELNP/2005. The Deputy Controller held that the functions of the this system was based on mathematical method for solving mathematical equations, and declined to accept the technical effect theory followed…

July 25, 2019 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1211Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Can Combining Contrivances Give Rise to Inventive Step? – An IPAB Case Note

This post was published on 24th January, 2014. Eaton Electric BV Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) Decision - Mp. No. 86/210, Decided on 14th July, 2011. Invention: A hygrometer is used in combination with the arrangement of a moisture absorbing agent, which is provided inside the enclosed housing of a Switch Gear. Prior Art: 1. Switch gear in enveloping housing filled with dry air to control Arc energy. 2. Introduction of moisture absorbing agent to reduce water content in the air. Question:…

July 24, 2019 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 834Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

From Dress Pin to Safety Pin

This post was first published on 2nd September, 2014. Inventive step / Non-Obviousness is one of the most important patentability criteria in almost all patent jurisdictions. Non-obviousness is the term used by the USPTO and is codified in 35 USC § 103. The requirement is that the claimed invention being patented should not be obvious, meaning that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" should not be able to easily guess or put two or more things together to arrive at the invention seeking a…

July 2, 2019 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1873Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Patentability and Section 3(d), History of Patent Law in India, Patentability of Imatinib Masylate in Beta Crystalline Form – Novartis Case Abridged by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala

This abridged version of the Novartis case was used by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala to explain to the students of UPES, the patentability requirements under the Patent Law and the significance of Section 3(d) under the Patents Act. This abridged document was provided to the B.tech - LLB students at UPES School of Law as part of the Patent Law and Practice Program being taught by the BananaIP Team. The Novartis case has been abridged to suit the discussion in the class, and to…

October 31, 2017 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 849Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

The featured image is a screen shot of the first slide that forms part of this presentation.

Analyzing Patentability of Inventions – A Presentation by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala at the UPES School of Law

This presentation is part of the 'Patent Law and Practice Program' being taught by BananaIP Team at UPES School of Law to B.tech-LLB Students. This presentation is titled "Analyzing Patentability of Inventions" and covers the following topics: Patentability Requirements Patentable Subject Matter Exclusions Examples Industrial applicability Novelty Inventive Step Secondary Indication Examples Specification Dr. Kalyan's Latest IP Thriller - The Dravidian You may access the full presentation here: About Dr. Kalyan…

October 31, 2017 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 761Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

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

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

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

Inventive Step of an Invention Analysed

Inventive Step – Technical Advance

Can Combining Contrivances Give Rise to Inventive Step? – An IPAB Case Note

From Dress Pin to Safety Pin

Patentability and Section 3(d), History of Patent Law in India, Patentability of Imatinib Masylate in Beta Crystalline Form – Novartis Case Abridged by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala

Analyzing Patentability of Inventions – A Presentation by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala at the UPES School of Law

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us