patent
Delhi HC Sets Standards for Pharmaceutical Patent Refusals
The Delhi High Court clarifies mandatory reasoning for patent refusals in Array Biopharma, curbing arbitrary use of Section 3(d) and 3(i) by the Indian Patent Office.
Browse the archive
Category: patent
patent
Bombay HC: Patent Office Must Substantiate Rejections
In Deepak Nitrite Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Bombay High Court has reprimanded the Patent Office for the 'bald invocation' of common general knowledge in refusal orders. Justice Arif S. Doctor emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must identify specific sources and provide reasoned links when rejecting patent claims for lacking an inventive step. The court’s decision highlights a recurring pattern of non-speaking orders and reiterates that patent applicants are entitled to transparent, well-reasoned analyses. This ruling serves as a vital reminder of the standards required for a sustainable patent refusal.
patent
Delhi HC Denies Deuterated Drug Patent in Intra-Cellular
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Intra-Cellular Therapies regarding a patent for deuterated psychiatric drug compounds. The court reaffirmed that a broad genus claim in earlier patents precludes novelty for specific species, even if not explicitly named. Furthermore, the judgment clarifies that evidence of improved bioavailability does not automatically satisfy the enhanced therapeutic efficacy requirement under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. This decision serves as a crucial warning to pharmaceutical innovators that pharmacokinetic data alone is insufficient to support patent claims without proven clinical improvements in therapeutic outcomes.
patent
Indian Patent Law Guide: Filing, Costs, and Rights FAQs
Navigating the Indian Patents Act, 1970, can be complex for startups and researchers. This comprehensive FAQ covers the essentials of patentability, the differences between provisional and complete specifications, and the filing process under the latest 2024 Amendment Rules. Learn about expedited examination, renewal fees, and how to protect your intellectual property effectively. We also clarify critical concepts like compulsory licensing, patent infringement remedies, and the Bolar exception. Whether you are an inventor or a business owner, this guide provides the clarity needed to secure and enforce your patent rights in India.
patent
NBA Approval Not a Passport to Patentability: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has clarified in Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents that approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) does not guarantee patentability. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Biological Diversity Act and the Patents Act serve distinct objectives. Additionally, the bench emphasized that post-filing evidence cannot compensate for deficiencies in the original specification. With internal contradictions regarding synergistic effects and a failure to overcome traditional knowledge exclusions under Section 3(p), this judgment provides a vital roadmap for practitioners handling biodiversity-based pharmaceutical inventions in India.
patent
Qualyst Case: Bombay HC Limits Patent Remand Powers
Can the Indian Patent Office use a court-ordered remand as an excuse to restart an entire patent examination? The Bombay High Court's ruling in Qualyst Transporter Solutions LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents clarifies that a remand for a breach of natural justice does not grant the Patent Office a blank check. We analyze why the court restricted the Controller from introducing new prior art or fresh objections, ensuring that procedural corrections focus on existing records. This decision sets a vital precedent for limiting re-examination scope after remand.
patent
Patent vs. Antitrust: Supreme Court in CCI v. Swapan Dey
The Supreme Court has stayed a NCLAT order that stripped the Competition Commission of India (CCI) of jurisdiction over patent-related conduct. The case, CCI v. Swapan Dey, addresses whether a patentee’s licensing arrangements can be investigated for anti-competitive behaviour. By freezing the exclusion, the Court keeps open the possibility of antitrust oversight in sectors like pharmaceuticals and technology. This ongoing jurisdictional feud highlights the complex tension between the Patents Act and the Competition Act, and the final verdict will likely reshape how dominant market players structure licensing agreements in India.
patent
Delhi HC Awards Rs 152 Cr in Historic CCA Patent Verdict
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has awarded Rs 152.32 Crore in damages in Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger, marking one of the largest patent awards in Indian history. The court upheld Indian Patent No. 240893, rejecting revocation claims and establishing infringement through MATLAB simulations. The judgment introduces the 'Dartboard Model' to curb frivolous prior art challenges and provides a robust framework for royalty-based damages in oligopolistic markets. This ruling underscores India's commitment to stringent IP enforcement, particularly in the telecommunications infrastructure sector, ensuring meaningful consequences for bad-faith patent infringement.
patent
Delhi HC Reverses Philips SEP Decree: A Landmark Ruling
In a decisive judgment, the Delhi High Court has overturned the 2018 decree in K.K. Bansal v. Philips, which was previously recognized as India's first SEP trial judgment. The Division Bench ruled that Philips failed to prove its patent's essentiality through admissible evidence or proper claim charts, and rejected the royalty claims due to a lack of comparable licensing data. Furthermore, the court clarified that Section 107A(b) provides broad protection for downstream assemblers in an authorized supply chain. This ruling establishes a rigorous evidentiary standard for all future standard essential patent litigation in India.
patent
When Patent Offices Ignore Replies: A Procedural Guide
A recent Delhi High Court ruling has reaffirmed that the patent examination process is not merely a formality. When the Patent Office issues a rejection order that fails to engage with the applicant's responses, it violates fundamental principles of natural justice. This article analyzes the case of VIB VZW v. Controller of Patents, where the court set aside a flawed rejection. We break down the necessity of the five-step inventive step test and why applicants must document every argument to ensure a fair and reasoned decision-making process.