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. Continue Reading Madras High Court Overturns Patent Refusal under section 3(d), Reiterates Importance of Reasoned Orders and Natural Justice
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Honeywell International Inc., overturning a refusal order by the Patent Office. The court emphasized the importance of fairness and the consideration of claims in conjunction with complete specifications, setting a precedent for thorough examination in patent matters. Continue Reading Delhi High Court Reverses Patent Office Decision: Honeywell’s Amendments Upheld
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…
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
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…