Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions: Section 3(k) Jurisprudence in India
A doctrinal analysis of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, examining Indian judicial and patent office guidelines on software and computer-related inventions.
Browse the archive
A doctrinal analysis of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, examining Indian judicial and patent office guidelines on software and computer-related inventions.
Analysis of 2 And 3: A comprehensive analysis of traditional knowledge protection under Indian patent law, examining biopiracy prevention, the TKDL...
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 judgment in Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. IIT Bombay affirmed the refusal of a patent application for missing Section 7(2) proof of right, setting strict chain of title standards for academic inventions.
<p>Comprehensive guide to compulsory licensing under the Indian Patents Act, 1970. Explains statutory grounds under Section 84 & 92, Controller procedures, royalty determination, and landmark case law including Bayer v. Union of India.</p>
Analysis of Xiaomi Find Device Patent Case: The Delhi HC dismissed an appeal by Conqueror Innovations against Xiaomi, ruling that the 'Find Device' feature...
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.