High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 7 November 2014 | FAO(OS) No. 16 of 2014 Background Koninklijke Philips Electronics, the Dutch multinational corporation, had filed an application for a patent in India on 13 February 1995 for an invention described as a “method for converting information words to a modulated signal.” The […]
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics Read More »
A patent, once granted, is not inviolable. The Patents Act, 1970 recognizes that the grant of a patent is an administrative act performed on the basis of an examination that, however thorough, may not always capture every deficiency in an application whether a failure of novelty, an insufficient disclosure, a statutory exclusion that was not
Revocation of Patents under Section 64 – Grounds and Procedure Read More »
Delhi High Court | Decided: 13 April 2012 I.A. No. 18464/2011 in CS (OS) No. 1421/2005 Bench: Justice Manmohan Singh Citation: 2012 PTC DEL 50 380 | 2012 SCC Online Del 2092 | 2012 CTC IP 3 6 Background AstraZeneca UK Ltd. (plaintiff) was the registered proprietor of the trade mark MERONEM, used for pharmaceutical
AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Read More »
Madras High Court | O.S.A. Nos. 132 and 133 of 2010 | Decided on 4 October 2010 Coram: Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice K.K. Sasidharan Background This dispute arose between two of India’s biggest two-wheeler manufacturers and it was not just about who copied whose technology. It was also about who gets to speak
The journey of a patent application in India does not end with filing. In many respects, it begins in earnest only when the Indian Patent Office issues what is formally known as the First Examination Report – the FER. For applicants who are new to the Indian patent system, the FER can appear daunting: a
Understanding the First Examination Report (FER) and How to Respond Read More »
Delhi High Court | Decided: 8 February 2011 W.P. (C) No. 801 of 2011 Bench: Justice S. Muralidhar Background Nippon Steel Corporation, a Japanese corporation with world-class technology in the field of medium-high grade steel, was engaged in intensive research and development in steelmaking and related engineering. On 9 February 2007, Nippon Steel filed an
The grant of a patent is not an automatic entitlement that follows from novelty or inventive step alone. Before any invention can be examined on those standard criteria, it must first clear a foundational threshold: it must constitute a patentable subject matter under Indian law. The Patents Act, 1970 draws this threshold with deliberate precision
Non-Patentable Subject Matter in India: A Complete Guide to Section 3 Read More »
Bombay High Court | Decided: 19 December 2007 Bench: Justice A.H. Joshi Citation: (2008) 3 MLJ 599 Background Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd., the plaintiff-appellant, was the registered holder of two patents – “GSWR” and “Spiral Lock Systems” bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177 respectively – relating to rope and wire systems used in infrastructure projects. The
A trademark is among the most commercially significant assets a business can possess. It is the sign by which consumers identify the source of goods or services, the vessel that carries a brand’s reputation and the legal instrument through which that reputation is defended. In India, the law governing the registration and protection of trademarks
Trademark Registration – The Complete Procedure under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Read More »
O.S. No. 3 of 1999, decided on 17 May 2010 (Kerala High Court) Background Low Heat Driers Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated in 1987 and engaged in manufacturing drying equipment for agricultural produce, claimed to have developed a novel device for smoke drying of agricultural products, particularly ribbed rubber sheets. The invention was attributed to