Browse the archive
Can online posts establish territorial jurisdiction in commercial suits? The Calcutta HC rules that interim injunctions require a strict jurisdictional audit under Clause 12.
The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) in India serves as a vital defensive mechanism, enabling patent examiners to identify traditional knowledge as prior art to prevent invalid patent grants.
The Madras High Court confirmed that patent infringement suits can be transferred to the High Court for consolidation with independent revocation petitions, even without a formal counter-claim.
The Bombay High Court has affirmed the refusal of a patent application for failure to provide a 'proof of right' under Section 7(2) of the Patents Act, 1970. The ruling highlights why clear chain of title documentation is mandatory.
Learn how Section 84 of the Patents Act 1970 functions as an administrative safety valve to balance patent monopolies with public health and industrial development.
The Delhi HC dismissed an appeal by Conqueror Innovations against Xiaomi, ruling that the 'Find Device' feature lacks essential patent elements and citing a nine-year delay.
The Delhi High Court has set aside a patent refusal, ruling that the Controller cannot consolidate Section 14 examination rights with Section 25 opposition hearings.
The Delhi High Court has confirmed that all patent and design infringement suits must be adjudicated by the Commercial Division of the High Court to ensure specialized oversight. In Yes Bank v. Modi Rubber, the bench held that Section 104 of the Patents Act 1970 and the Designs Act 2000 are inextricably linked to the Commercial Courts Act 2015. This procedural mandate streamlines litigation, ensuring that complex technical disputes are handled by benches equipped for commercial matters, thereby reducing jurisdictional ambiguity and fostering consistent judicial administration for intellectual property rights nationwide.
The Delhi High Court has reinforced that pharmaceutical patent refusals must demonstrate clear, reasoned justifications regarding inventive step and efficacy. In the matter of Esteve Pharmaceuticals, the court clarified that the Controller must engage substantively with an applicant's technical submissions rather than issuing generic statutory rejections. Establishing a departure from prior art is essential for compliance with Section 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act 1970. This ruling mandates rigorous scientific evidence to overcome obviousness objections and secure patentability for new forms of known substances.
The Delhi High Court has established a definitive seven-step test to evaluate Section 3(m) patent objections, clarifying the exclusion of mental acts and abstract methods. This framework ensures that examiners distinguish between patentable technical solutions and non-patentable mere schemes or rules under the Indian Patents Act. By incorporating principles from European Patent Office jurisprudence, the Court provides a structured methodology for assessing whether claimed innovations involve physical means integral to performance. This development reduces uncertainty for patent applicants and provides a consistent standard for navigating the exclusion of mental acts.
