Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Key issues under scrutiny include whether the properties attributed to this formulation of specific strain of Bifidobacterium longum are sufficiently distinct from prior art to merit patent protection and whether the claimed synergistic effects of the formulation demonstrate a significant technical advancement.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Based on the detailed comparison and the combined teachings along with examples of common general knowledge, it is established that the claimed invention lacks an inventive step. The features of portability, comprehensive monitoring, and anomaly detection are either disclosed in or can be inferred from the prior arts.

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The real challenge with a patent application in respect of a synthesized non-living substance is establishing novelty, technical advance and not patent eligibility”

madras high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“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)”

madras high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court viewed that there is nothing in the text or context of Section 3(d) which supports the interpretation that enhancement of known efficacy of the substance should be restricted to engineering or prospecting variants of phytase with inherently greater enzymatic activity over the reference phytase.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plea of novelty or originality must be examined vis-à-vis the date of registration of the suit design. The existence, thereafter, of any number of similar designs in the market, or even the publication of any number of similar designs, cannot indicate any want of novelty or originality in the suit design, within the meaning of Section 19(1)(c) or Section 4(a) of the Designs Act.