Prior Art Archives

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 391Views 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 556Views 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 716Views 0Like

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 1687Views 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 8250Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Informed Prior Art Analysis for Traditional Knowledge Based Inventions

This post was first published on November 26th, 2012. Prior art forms the core of novelty and inventive step analysis and also plays an important role in the assessment of other requirements. For negating novelty, the basic principle is: all elements of an invention must be present in a single prior art, expressly or inherently, supplemented by knowledge of a skilled artisan. For making an invention obvious, a combination of prior art elements that form part of the invention must be…

April 28, 2019 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property 0Comment 1091Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

The featured image shows a bunch of black pencils with the word Design written in the background in black and bold letters. The post is regarding designs. To know more click here.

Designing Around Designs

This post was first published on February 14, 2010. In furtherance of our posts with respect to patent infringement analysis, I would like to hereby write a note on analysis of design infringement and steps to be taken for designing around designs. Design infringement analysis and strategy for designing around registered designs assumes importance in the light of an increase in design protection in fashion, furniture, toys and other industries. While it is important for a designer to protect his designs,…

November 26, 2018 BananaIP Reporter Industrial Designs, Intellectual Property 0Comment 1056Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Characters are pulling a rope written PATENT on top as this article is about Indian Patent Law Basics

Amendments to a PCT Application under Article 19 and Article 34

In an event where an applicant wishes to make certain changes in only the claims of a direct PCT application, the applicant can invoke the procedure under Article 19. The applicant can only amend the claims under Article 19. The applicant cannot amend the description or the drawings. There are certain conditions for filing an amendment under this Article. The application must be filed within 2 months from the issuance of the International Search Report and no new matter can…