“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”
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.
“There are repeated cases wherein litigants have raised allegations against Trade Marks Agents and Patent Agents and apart from reprimand from courts, there are no other consequences that visit them.”
“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.”
In pharmaceutical patents, especially, additional care must be taken to ensure that, by being allowed to evergreen a patent beyond its expiry, the patent holder does not keep others, who may seek to deal in the patented product, out of the market. The ultimate sufferer, in such a situation, would be the ailing public, who seek access to the product.
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 application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the
Delhi High Court: Jyoti Singh, J. in a case where patent was granted without delving and dealing with the grounds raised in
Karnataka High Court: S G Pandit, J. declared the present writ petition filed by XIAOMI India under Article 226 of
On 2nd June, 2022, Canadian Minister of Industry notified amendments to Patent Rules. Formulated under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the recent
The Central Government makes the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2021 to amend the Patents Rules, 2003. Key Amendments: In the Patents Rules,
United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia: Leonie M Brinkema, J., observed that, Congress’s use of the term “individual” in the
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
Central Information Commission (CIC): Saroj Punhani (Information Commissioner), harmonised the conflicting interests of the parties keeping with the letter and spirit of
Consequent to Delhi High Court’s Order dated 23-04-2018 in writ petition No. WPC- 5590 of 2015 in the matter of Shamnad Basheer
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: While deciding the instant appeal raising questions important to the international market in telecommunications such as
Supreme Court of United Kingdom: Full Bench of Lady Hale (President), Lord Reed (Deputy President), Lord Hodge, Lady Black and Lord Kitchin,