UPES, School of Law, Dehradun is organizing the 14th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition, 2024 in collaboration
The Court unanimously stated that the Comptroller was right in determining that the appellant was not entitled to apply for the patents simply by his ownership of DABUS.
“The application for grant of a patent of addition cannot be filed earlier than the date of filing of the application for grant of patent for the main invention; it cannot be granted before grant of the patent for the main invention; the term of the patent of addition shall not exceed that of the main invention, even if granted later than the main invention”
“The line of demarcation between diagnostic and non-diagnostic tests may not always be bright and could blur on occasion; even so, there is sufficient support both in the text and immediate context of the expression “diagnostic” in Section 3(i)”
“The application could not have been rejected solely on the ground that the plurality of inventions was not specifically contained in the claim, and only in the disclosure contained in the complete specifications.”
It is essential for the Indian Patent Office to adopt a more comprehensive approach when assessing Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), considering technical effects and contributions provided by the invention rather than solely focusing on the implementation of algorithms and computer-executable instructions.
The Delhi High Court observed that “Dichotomizing the claims and the accompanying specifications is, therefore, contrary to the most fundamental canons of patent law.”
The Supreme Court of Canada was deciding a dispute between Nova Chemicals and Dow Chemicals, where the issue revolved around accounting of profits as a remedy for patent infringement.
Delhi High Court: In a case where an appeal was filed against the order of Controller General of Patents and
Federal Court of Australia: While addressing the question of whether Artificial Intelligence Systems can be an inventor for the purposes of the
England and Wales High Court (Patents Court): Marcus Smith, J. explained exhaustively whether an ‘Artificial Intelligence Machine’ DABUS can be categorized as
Supreme Court of the United States: In order to craft a federal patent system that encourages the creation and disclosure of new