Non Obviousness Archives

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. Continue Reading Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrack

July 9, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 381Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Could an advanced Chat GPT be ‘the person skilled in the art’ for patent prosecution?

This post gives a general overview on the possibilities of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models such as ChatGPT, in providing useful assistance in the Patent examination process. Continue Reading Could an advanced Chat GPT be ‘the person skilled in the art’ for patent prosecution?

April 21, 2023 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1586Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image for important patent case laws 2021

Important Patent Case law – 2021

In this post, we bring to you Important Patent Cases decided by Indian Courts in year 2021 FMC Corporation & ANR. vs Natco Pharma Limited In this comprehensive judgment with respect to grant of interim injunctions involving a patent relating to “Chlorantraniliprole” (also known as CTPR), the Delhi High Court rejected a valiant effort by the defendant based on several grounds under the patent law. The Court refused to grant permission to the defendant to manufacture and sell the insecticide during…

January 13, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 2437Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Latest Patent Cases in 2021 – Part 3

Novartis Ag & Anr. vs Natco Pharma Limited & Anr. This case relates to a patent covering Eltrombopag Olamine (Eltrombopag bis(monoethanolamine)) held by Novartis. The drug is used for treatment of thrombocytopenia sold under the brand name "REVOLADE." Novartis filed a patent infringement suit against the Defendant, NATCO, which was planning to launch the same product. In response NATCO claimed patent invalidity based on prior claiming, obviousness, Section 3d, industrial applicability and Section 8 non-compliance. After hearing the parties, the Court held…

December 20, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 5474Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

This image depicts a Gavel, a hammer which is used by a Judge to get attention. This image is relevant as the articles deals with the famous 'Trilogy' theme in the area of patent. Click on the image for more information

Non-Obviousness and the Trilogy

This post was first published on 5th December, 2014. The Supreme Court's non-obviousness precedent commenced with Graham v. John Deere Co., and its companion cases, Calmar v. Cook Chemical and United States v. Adams, collectively referred to in patent circles as the Trilogy. This trilogy represents the Supreme Court’s first interpretation of the statutory non-obvious requirement. The principal issue in the trilogy was establishing the level of ingenuity necessary to satisfy the Section 103 non-obvious requirement that had been added to the Patent Act in 1952.…

July 25, 2019 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1650Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

This image depicts two dolphins jumping high over the sea with the sunset in the Background. This image is relevant as it deals with TSM test which is the Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation test. Click on the image for more information.

The TSM Test and Non-obviousness

This post was first published on 6th December, 2014. TSM test is the Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation test. It simply means, when analysing the obviousness of an invention while comparing it with prior art, these are the three questions that have to be asked: Is the prior art quoted instrumental in teaching the reader the method of producing the invention? Does the prior art or any of its contents suggest any method of producing the invention in question? Does the…

July 25, 2019 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 7819Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

The Non-Obviousness Requirement and its Evolution – Graham vs. John Deere

This post was first published on 16th July, 2014. Today's special is the case that has set a high precedent in US Patent Law practice, acquiring the status of the highest cited case in subsequent cases decided by several courts, especially the CAFC. Graham vs. John Deere Co. is cited extensively since it clarifies the judicial standing on the requirement of non-obviousness of an invention. William T Graham (Graham) sued John Deere Co. (Deere) for patent infringement. Details: Graham invented a…

July 20, 2019 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 3197Views 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 1740Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Patent Prosecution in the Automobile Industry

This presentation was delivered by Aishwarya Narayan as a part of the course for senior management and IP Officers in the Automobile Industry. The presentation covers: Concept of Patent prosecution Activities until grant of application-search, drafting, filing, amendment, responses etc Patent prosecution process Requirements for grant of a patent Machine or Transformation test Bilski v. Kappos Concept of Novelty Concept of Non-obviousness Specification support Requirements for prosecuting a patent…

October 16, 2015 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 2696Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Special 301 Report: Chapter V. Inventive Step & 3(d) – Comprehending Apprehension or Apprehending Comprehension?

Is Section 3(d) an extension of the Inventive Step analysis? The answer to this question can make a difference to the compliance of non-discrimination obligations under the TRIPs Agreement, and so it plays a significant part. Article 27.1 of the TRIPs Agreement reads as follows: Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable…