{"id":214220,"date":"2019-05-02T11:00:08","date_gmt":"2019-05-02T05:30:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=214220"},"modified":"2019-05-02T11:36:46","modified_gmt":"2019-05-02T06:06:46","slug":"euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/","title":{"rendered":"Euro Patent Office | Ex-post facto analysis with benefit of hindsight knowledge of invention not a correct approach to decide patent application"},"content":{"rendered":"

Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office:\u00a0<\/strong>A Bench of B. Stolz, Chairman and M.R. Vega Laso and J. Geschwind, members allowed the appeal filed against the decision of the Examining Division whereby the appellant’s application for European Patent with the title,\u00a0“Non-destructive procedure for the isolation of DNA from plants”\u00a0<\/em>was rejected.<\/p>\n

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division found that the subject-matter of the claims, then on file, did not involve an inventive step. It may be noted that the appellant replaced the main claims with a set of new claims.<\/p>\n

Article 123 of the European <\/strong>Patent Convention (amendment and added matter)<\/strong><\/p>\n

In regard to the new set of claims, the Board held that the amendments did not raise any issue which the board could not reasonably be expected to deal with without adjournment of the oral proceedings. As far as the added matter was concerned, it was held that the subject-matter of the amended claims did not extend beyond the content of the application filed. Thus, Article 123(2) of the Convention was complied with.<\/p>\n

Article 56 (inventive step)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The claimed invention related to a method for screening plant populations obtained during plant breeding in order to select desired genetic variants. According to the appellants, their invention reduces the required effort and allows screening of large plant populations with high efficiency. The Board perused document 6 as submitted on record, as the closest state of the art. The document described a protocol for the isolation of high-molecular-weight of DNA from dry roots of medicinal plant\u00a0Berberis Lycium.\u00a0<\/em>After a lengthy discussion on the appellant’s claim, an inventive step over Document 6 read by a skilled person in the light of the common general knowledge in the art was acknowledged. Similarly, taking Document 7 as the closest state of art, it was held that the claimed method involved an inventive step. The approach of the Examining Division was a result of an\u00a0ex-post facto\u00a0<\/em>analysis with the benefit of hindsight knowledge of the invention.<\/p>\n

In such view of the matter, the Board directed the Examining Division to grant the patent on the basis of the claims filed as a main request during the oral proceedings and a description to be adapted thereto. [Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel B.V., In re, T 1985\/12-3.3.08, dated 13-07-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office:\u00a0A Bench of B. Stolz, Chairman and M.R. Vega Laso and J. Geschwind, members allowed <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":214221,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4631],"tags":[35163,35160,35162,35161],"class_list":["post-214220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-international-courts","tag-article-123-of-the-european-patent-convention","tag-dna-from-plants","tag-ex-post-facto-analysis","tag-patent-application"],"yoast_head":"\nEuro Patent Office | Ex-post facto analysis with benefit of hindsight knowledge of invention not a correct approach to decide patent application | 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\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Euro Patent Office | Ex-post facto analysis with benefit of hindsight knowledge of invention not a correct approach to decide patent application\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office:\u00a0A Bench of B. Stolz, Chairman and M.R. Vega Laso and J. Geschwind, members allowed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-05-02T05:30:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-05-02T06:06:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/EUROPEAN-PATENT-OFFICE.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\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/\",\"name\":\"Euro Patent Office | Ex-post facto analysis with benefit of hindsight knowledge of invention not a correct approach to decide patent application | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/EUROPEAN-PATENT-OFFICE.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-05-02T05:30:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-05-02T06:06:46+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/EUROPEAN-PATENT-OFFICE.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/EUROPEAN-PATENT-OFFICE.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Euro Patent Office | Ex-post facto analysis with benefit of hindsight knowledge of invention not a correct approach to decide patent application\"}]},{\"@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":"Euro Patent Office | Ex-post facto analysis with benefit of hindsight knowledge of invention not a correct approach to decide patent application | 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\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Euro Patent Office | Ex-post facto analysis with benefit of hindsight knowledge of invention not a correct approach to decide patent application","og_description":"Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office:\u00a0A Bench of B. Stolz, Chairman and M.R. Vega Laso and J. Geschwind, members allowed","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-05-02T05:30:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-05-02T06:06:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/EUROPEAN-PATENT-OFFICE.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\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/","name":"Euro Patent Office | Ex-post facto analysis with benefit of hindsight knowledge of invention not a correct approach to decide patent application | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/EUROPEAN-PATENT-OFFICE.jpg","datePublished":"2019-05-02T05:30:08+00:00","dateModified":"2019-05-02T06:06:46+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/EUROPEAN-PATENT-OFFICE.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/EUROPEAN-PATENT-OFFICE.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/02\/euro-patent-office-ex-post-facto-analysis-with-benefit-of-hindsight-knowledge-of-invention-not-a-correct-approach-to-decide-patent-application\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Euro Patent Office | Ex-post facto analysis with benefit of hindsight knowledge of invention not a correct approach to decide patent application"}]},{"@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\/2019\/05\/EUROPEAN-PATENT-OFFICE.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":277875,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/22\/simplicity-does-not-defeat-an-invention-and-even-simple-inventions-are-patentable-delhi-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":214220,"position":0},"title":"Simplicity does not defeat an invention and even simple inventions are patentable: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"November 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case where an appeal was filed against the order of Controller General of Patents and Designs (Respondent) refusing the application for grant of patent \u2018Notched Fastener\u2019, the Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J. held that simplicity would not defeat the grant\u2026","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\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":66051,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/09\/02\/benefit-of-safe-harbor-provision-can-be-granted-only-to-divisional-patent-applications-and-not-to-continuation-in-part-applications\/","url_meta":{"origin":214220,"position":1},"title":"Benefit of ‘safe harbor’ provision can be granted only to divisional patent applications and not to ‘continuation in part’ applications","author":"Saba","date":"September 2, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Chief Judge Prost, Bryson and Hughes, Circuit Judges ruled on a case involving patent protection of a product by Pfizer Asia Pacific (used as Pfizer ahead) used for the treatment of pain and inflammation without the harmful side effects associated with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/US-Court-of-Appeals-for-Federal-Circuit.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/US-Court-of-Appeals-for-Federal-Circuit.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/US-Court-of-Appeals-for-Federal-Circuit.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/US-Court-of-Appeals-for-Federal-Circuit.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/US-Court-of-Appeals-for-Federal-Circuit.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293970,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/06\/update-manual-for-practice-and-procedure-for-dealing-intricate-matters-in-a-better-way-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":214220,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court directs Patent office to update Manual for Practice and Procedure for dealing intricate matters in a better way","author":"Simranjeet","date":"June 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Since the number of filings in India are rapidly increasing thus there is an imminent need to update the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure so that the Examiners and Controllers can get better guidance on dealing intricate matters like objections of lack of clarity and succinctness.","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\/2023\/05\/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\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":37091,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/02\/26\/software-patents-indian-scenario\/","url_meta":{"origin":214220,"position":3},"title":"Software patents \u2013 Indian Scenario","author":"Sucheta","date":"February 26, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"By Vidya Sagar","rel":"","context":"In "Intellectual Property"","block_context":{"text":"Intellectual Property","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/intellectual_property\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/europe-software-patents.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/europe-software-patents.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/europe-software-patents.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/europe-software-patents.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/europe-software-patents.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":268728,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/20\/why-del-hc-in-exercise-of-its-writ-jurisdiction-condoned-the-delay-in-filing-reply-to-fer-when-patent-act-rules-mandate-deemed-abandonment-in-case-of-timely-non-compliance\/","url_meta":{"origin":214220,"position":4},"title":"Why Delhi HC, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, condoned the delay in filing reply to FER, when Patent Act\/Rules mandate ‘deemed abandonment’ in case of timely non-compliance","author":"Editor","date":"June 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The mistake of the patent agent would be similar to the mistake of an advocate who may be representing parties in any civil or criminal litigation. Delhi High Court: Prathiba M Singh J. condoned the delay in filing reply to the First Examination Reports (hereinafter \u2018FER') and remarked that applicant\u2026","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\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292382,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/need-to-reconsider-exclusions-u-s-3k-of-the-patents-act-in-view-of-growing-innovations-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":214220,"position":5},"title":"Need to reconsider exclusions under S. 3(k) of the Patents Act in view of growing innovations: Delhi High Court","author":"Simranjeet","date":"May 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Many inventions in emerging technologies including by SMEs, start-ups and educational institutions can be in the field of business methods or application of computing and digital technologies, therefore, there is a need to reconsider the exclusions in Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, in view of the growing innovations.","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\/2023\/04\/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\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/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\/214220","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=214220"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214220\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/214221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}