patent Office Archives

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. Continue Reading A doped order on method of doping, court clarifies

August 20, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 400Views 2Likes

ShareFacebook

Court balances Hygieia’s patent application after IPO disbalances it under section 59

The Madras High Court has set aside the refusal of Hygieia Inc.’s patent application, highlighting the need for proper consideration of amended claims. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting claims in conjunction with their specifications and has directed a re-examination of the application by a different controller within six months. Continue Reading Court balances Hygieia’s patent application after IPO disbalances it under section 59

July 15, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 421Views 2Likes

ShareFacebook

Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

The Delhi High Court has faulted the Patent Office for rejecting a patent application without adequate reasoning. The case involved a beverage can closure design, and the Controller’s decision lacked clarity and failed to address the applicant’s arguments effectively. The Court has sent the case back for a proper re-examination, highlighting the need for thoroughness in patent application reviews. Continue Reading Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

March 18, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 476Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

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. Continue Reading Patent…

March 12, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 444Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

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…

March 8, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 372Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure: BananaIP’s Comments / Suggestions

BananaIP Counsels has recently submitted its comments and suggestions to the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) with respect to the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure. The Office of CGPTDM had sought comments/suggestions on the existing manuals and guidelines vide a notification dated 30.08.2023. The comments/suggestions submitted are detailed below. You may also download an accessible PDF version of the comments here – Suggestions & Comments on Manual of Patent Office Practice and…

October 6, 2023 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents, Press Release 0Comment 710Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

CASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited

Facts (with Timeline): i) FMC Corporation and FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd. (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) were assigned Indian Patent No. 298645 (suit patent/IN’645) titled “Method for preparing N-Phenylpyrazole-1-Carboxamides.” ii) The suit patent disclosed a novel method for preparing anthranilic diamide insecticide compounds. The claimed method involves combining: a carboxylic acid compound of Formula 2, an aniline compound of Formula 3, and a sulfonyl chloride, to prepare a compound of Formula 1 (Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR)). iii) The Plaintiffs brought…

October 3, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 3880Views 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 1314Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

CASE BRIEF: Novo Nordisk AS vs. Union of India & Ors.

Facts (with Timeline): On 4th October, 2013, Novo Nordisk (hereinafter referred to as “Patentee”) was issued patent IN 257402. On 29th September, 2014, which is five days prior to the expiry of one year from the date of grant, Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries (hereinafter referred to as “Opponent) filed a post-grant opposition to the issued patent IN 257402. On 21st August, 2019, the Opposition Board provided its recommendation to the learned Controller. On 25th September, 2019 and 26th September, 2019, the hearing…

July 23, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1582Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings"

Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court gave clarity about how amended claims during opposition proceedings have to be dealt with by the Controller of Patents. In the case, four claim sets were filed by Novartis, the Patent Applicant, from the PCT filing stage, and the opponent in the case, NATCO, filed a pre-grant representation based on a pre-final claim set. Later, the claims were amended by the Patent Applicant, and a final set was submitted along with expert…

July 22, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1632Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

A doped order on method of doping, court clarifies

Court balances Hygieia’s patent application after IPO disbalances it under section 59

Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

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

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure: BananaIP’s Comments / Suggestions

CASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited

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

CASE BRIEF: Novo Nordisk AS vs. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us