{"id":208964,"date":"2019-01-29T17:30:29","date_gmt":"2019-01-29T12:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=208964"},"modified":"2019-03-01T14:48:28","modified_gmt":"2019-03-01T09:18:28","slug":"scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS | “Secret sales” can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of the United States:<\/strong> In order to craft a federal patent system that encourages the creation and disclosure of new inventions, Thomas, J. upheld that once an invention has been put to public use it qualifies as a prior art under the AIA Act.<\/p>\n

The petitioner developed a treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting using the chemical palonosetron for which he entered agreements with a company granting it the right to distribute, promote the market, and sell a 0.25 mg dose of palonosetron with it being \u201cconfidential information\u201d. He eventually filed a patent covering a fixed dose of 0.25 mg of palonosetron covered by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). In a few years time a respondent sought approval to market the same but was sued by the petitioner on the pretext of patent infringement as the “on sale” provision of the AIA precludes a person from obtaining a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective e-filing date of the claimed invention.<\/em><\/p>\n

The contention of the petitioners was that the “on sale” provision of the AIA act as re-enacted by the Congress cannot be put into action as the above-stated agreements did not disclose the 0.25 mg dose. But the interpretation of the law and the precedents put forth by the respondents it was clear that public disclosure of the invention details was not needed when it was out on sale for public use also the law by no means has intended the same in its re-enacted version. The mere fact that it was out on sale would suffice to bring it within the purview of \u2018on-sale\u2019<\/em> bar.<\/p>\n

The Court in the light of the precedents laid in Special Devices Inc.<\/em> v. OEA Inc., <\/em>270 F. 3d 1353, 1357 (2001) and Woodland Trust <\/em>v. Flowertree Nursery Inc., <\/em>148 F. 3d 1368, 1370 (1998) expressed that the \u2018on sale\u2019 phrase states that an inventor’s prior commercial use constitutes a public sale under \u00a7102(b) of the Act barring patent over it. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit\u2019s judgment declaring it to be the exclusive judicator in the matter.[Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.,\u00a02019 SCC OnLine US SC 2<\/b><\/a>, decided on 22-01-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of the United States: In order to craft a federal patent system that encourages the creation and disclosure of new <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[33483,33482,18411,33484,33481],"class_list":["post-208964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-art","tag-invention","tag-patent-rights","tag-public-use","tag-secret-sales"],"yoast_head":"\nSCOTUS | "Secret sales" can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS | "Secret sales" can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of the United States: In order to craft a federal patent system that encourages the creation and disclosure of new\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-01-29T12:00:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-01T09:18:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS | \\\"Secret sales\\\" can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-01-29T12:00:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-01T09:18:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS | “Secret sales” can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS | \"Secret sales\" can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS | \"Secret sales\" can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent","og_description":"Supreme Court of the United States: In order to craft a federal patent system that encourages the creation and disclosure of new","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-01-29T12:00:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-01T09:18:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/","name":"SCOTUS | \"Secret sales\" can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2019-01-29T12:00:29+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-01T09:18:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/scotus-secret-sales-can-invalidate-a-patent-petitioner-denied-patent-rights-over-an-invention-which-was-available-to-public-use-prior-to-patent\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS | “Secret sales” can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":348715,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/26\/calcutta-high-court-patent-morality-scientific-proof-section-3b-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":208964,"position":0},"title":"Patent rejection can\u2019t be based on health or morality without scientific proof: Calcutta High Court","author":"Arunima","date":"May 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The interaction of patent laws and ethics is an uncomfortable relationship and has always produced difficulties. In such circumstances, section 3(b) ought not to be interpreted to deal with all subjective concerns of morality, public order or health regardless of any scientific or technical evidence or any cogent reasoning.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308387,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/04\/whether-any-application-for-grant-of-patent-for-an-invention-in-s-39-1-would-apply-to-patent-of-addition-mad-hc-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":208964,"position":1},"title":"Whether expression \u201cany application for grant of a patent for an invention\u201d in S. 39 (1) applies to a patent of addition? Madras HC answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"December 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe 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\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":371875,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/07\/del-hc-declines-injunction-in-foldable-display-unit-patent-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":208964,"position":2},"title":"Delhi HC declines injunctive relief in Amitoje foldable display unit patent case","author":"Prarthana Gupta","date":"January 7, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe claimed invention would be obvious to the person skilled in the art, and therefore, the defendant has been able to raise a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent under Section 64(1)(f) of the Act.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Amitoje foldable unit patent infringement","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Amitoje-foldable-unit-patent-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Amitoje-foldable-unit-patent-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Amitoje-foldable-unit-patent-infringement.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Amitoje-foldable-unit-patent-infringement.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":322587,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/21\/no-teaching-suggestion-motivation-prior-art-make-obvious-psita-madras-hc-remands-patent-application-controller-reconsideration\/","url_meta":{"origin":208964,"position":3},"title":"\u2018No teaching, suggestion or motivation in prior art to make it obvious to a person skilled in art\u2019; Madras HC remands patent application to Controller for reconsideration","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 21, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Since about 12 years have elapsed from the date of application, Madras High Court directed that the Patent Application be disposed of within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":290957,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/29\/deblocking-provisions-a-key-to-unlocking-patent-potential\/","url_meta":{"origin":208964,"position":4},"title":"Deblocking Provisions: A Key to Unlocking Patent Potential","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Pulkit Doger\u2020 Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 39","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"licensing and transfer of technology in patent rights","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/licensing-and-transfer-of-technology-in-patent-rights.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/licensing-and-transfer-of-technology-in-patent-rights.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/licensing-and-transfer-of-technology-in-patent-rights.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/licensing-and-transfer-of-technology-in-patent-rights.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324290,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-upholds-refusal-portable-vehicle-management-system-absence-novelty-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":208964,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court upholds refusal of patent for Portable Vehicle Management System due to lack of novelty","author":"Arunima","date":"June 13, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208964","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=208964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208964\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}