{"id":317971,"date":"2024-03-21T12:00:10","date_gmt":"2024-03-21T06:30:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=317971"},"modified":"2024-04-06T11:18:15","modified_gmt":"2024-04-06T05:48:15","slug":"madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cOccurring in nature\u201d in S. 3(c) only qualifies the nearest reasonable referent \u201cnon-living substance\u201d: Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court<\/span>: In an appeal against the order passed by the Patent Office, wherein it rejected the application of the appellant under Section 3(c)<\/a> of the Patents Act, 1970<\/a> (\u2018Act\u2019), Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J. while setting aside the impugned order, said that as the antibody was generated by injecting an engineered antigen into the mice, and the material extracted from the inguinal lymph of the mice was fused with myeloma cells by the hybridoma process which resulted in the antibody over which the patent claim is made. Thus, the claimed invention does not exclude patent protection as per Section 3<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The Patent Application was filed by the appellant, seeking patent protection for their invention, \u201cAntibody Capable of Binding Specifically to A-beta Oligomer and Use Thereof\u201d. The respondent objected to this application through the First Examination Report (\u2018FER\u2019), claiming the ineligibility of patent protection for the submitted application under Section 3<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The appellant responded to the FER and claimed that the antibody for application was not naturally occurring and is not found in nature, refuting the respondent’s objections in the FER. However, the respondent confirmed Section 3(c) objection, holding that the antibody with its specific chemical sequence, is an inherent feature and does not distinguish it from those that occur in nature. It was further claimed that the antibody in question was discovered, and therefore, not patent eligible. Thereby, the claimed invention was rejected under Section 3(c)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Judgment<\/p>\n

The Court attempted to explain the intended meaning of the language of Section 3<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. First, the Court said that the word \u201cmere\u201d has been added before the word \u201cdiscovery\u201d to refer to only something that is beyond the discovery of a scientific principle, could be patentable.<\/p>\n

Thus, the qualifier \u201cmere\u201d is confined to the nearest reasonable referent \u201cdiscovery of a scientific principle\u201d and does not extend to \u201cthe discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second, the Court elucidated the expression \u201coccurring in nature\u201d does not include \u201cliving things\u201d, since that would create a redundancy not attributable to the Parliament. Therefore, on this point, the Court concluded that, \u201coccurring in nature\u201d in the third limb of Section 3(c) only qualifies the nearest reasonable referent \u201cnon-living substance\u201d.<\/p>\n

Enunciating further on this matter, the Court also examined the judgments of the US Supreme Court. Amongst those, Sidney A. Diamond<\/span> v. Ananda M. Chakrabarty<\/span>, 1980 SCC OnLine US SC 128<\/a> was in great emphasis. The man-made bacterium in that case was held to be patent-eligible.<\/p>\n

Further examined was the case of Association for Molecular Pathology et al<\/span> v. Myriad Genetics et al<\/span>, 133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013), concluding that a claimed invention for discovery of two human genes was patent ineligible, however, a synthetically created cDNA was held to be patent eligible.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court concluded that redundancy should not be imputed to Parliament, and that the expression \u201coccurring in nature\u201d should not be robbed of all meaning and purpose. Further, it said that it should not be lost sight that Section 3(c) is confined to patent exclusions or ineligibility and passing through such filter does not guarantee the grant of patent.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked that the real challenge with a patent application in respect of a synthesized non-living substance is establishing novelty, technical advance and not patent eligibility.<\/p>\n

After perusing the complete specification, the Court said that the antibody of the claimed invention was undoubtedly not isolated from a human being, but was engineered in the manner described in the complete specification.<\/p>\n

Concerning the contention of the respondent that the claims are in respect of the discovery of an antibody\/non-living substance occurring in nature, the Court said that it cannot be countenanced merely because the organism specified in the sequence listing is homo sapiens. Such conclusion would be justified only if the appellant had discovered\/found a hitherto unknown antibody and isolated it from nature.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that the antibody was generated by injecting an engineered antigen into the mice. After doing so, material extracted from the inguinal lymph of the mice was fused with myeloma cells by the hybridoma process. This resulted in the antibody over which the patent claim is made. Thus, the Court held that the claimed invention does not exclude patent protection as per Section 3<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order, and directed that the claimed invention be granted patent protection.<\/p>\n

[Immunas Pharma, Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design (T), 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 480<\/a>, decided on 06-03-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> Senior Advocate P.V. Balasubramaniam<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> SPC N. Vijayaraman<\/p>\n

Buy Patents Act, 1970 \u00a0HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"patents<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The real challenge with a patent application in respect of a synthesized non-living substance is establishing novelty, technical advance and not patent eligibility”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":314802,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[66632,66636,2567,66634,55196,66635,3554,46415,62282,39068,53420,66633,66637],"class_list":["post-317971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-anti-body-invention","tag-assistant-controller-of-patents-and-design","tag-Madras_High_Court","tag-mere-discovery","tag-novelty","tag-occurring-in-nature","tag-patent","tag-patent-act","tag-patent-eligibility","tag-patent-office","tag-patent-protection","tag-section-3-patent-act","tag-technical-advance"],"yoast_head":"\nMadras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Madras HC directed patent protection for antibody invention\" \/>\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\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cOccurring in nature\u201d in S. 3(c) only qualifies the nearest reasonable referent \u201cnon-living substance\u201d: Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras HC directed patent protection for antibody invention\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-03-21T06:30:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-04-06T05:48:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u201cOccurring in nature\u201d in S. 3(c) only qualifies the nearest reasonable referent \u201cnon-living substance\u201d: Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 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\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/\",\"name\":\"Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-03-21T06:30:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-04-06T05:48:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Madras HC directed patent protection for antibody invention\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Madras High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u201cOccurring in nature\u201d in S. 3(c) only qualifies the nearest reasonable referent \u201cnon-living substance\u201d: Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention\"}]},{\"@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\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention | SCC Times","description":"Madras HC directed patent protection for antibody invention","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\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cOccurring in nature\u201d in S. 3(c) only qualifies the nearest reasonable referent \u201cnon-living substance\u201d: Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention","og_description":"Madras HC directed patent protection for antibody invention","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-03-21T06:30:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-04-06T05:48:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u201cOccurring in nature\u201d in S. 3(c) only qualifies the nearest reasonable referent \u201cnon-living substance\u201d: Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/","name":"Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-03-21T06:30:10+00:00","dateModified":"2024-04-06T05:48:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Madras HC directed patent protection for antibody invention","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Madras High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/21\/madras-high-court-directed-patent-protection-for-antibody-invention\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u201cOccurring in nature\u201d in S. 3(c) only qualifies the nearest reasonable referent \u201cnon-living substance\u201d: Madras HC directs patent protection for antibody invention"}]},{"@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\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"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":317971,"position":0},"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":310076,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/25\/madras-high-court-distinguishes-between-date-of-assignment-date-of-declaration-patent-applications\/","url_meta":{"origin":317971,"position":1},"title":"Madras High Court distinguishes between date of assignment and date of declaration in patent applications","author":"Apoorva","date":"December 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court directed the Controller of Patents and Designs to decide the patent application on merits and in accordance with law.","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":310198,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/27\/invention-applicable-business-primarily-related-technical-process-not-business-method-madras-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":317971,"position":2},"title":"Invention applicable in business but primarily related to technical process is not a business method; Madras HC remanded patent application for reconsideration","author":"Apoorva","date":"December 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe monopoly claim is not in respect of a business method but in respect of a claimed invention deploying hardware, software and firmware for purposes of data privacy and protection\u201d","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":373282,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/20\/madras-hc-finds-flipkart-patent-novel-inventive\/","url_meta":{"origin":317971,"position":3},"title":"Madras High Court dismisses appeal against Controller’s order, finds Flipkart’s patent novel and inventive","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"January 20, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe entire case of Flipkart rested on the ground of lack of novelty and inventive features in the invention of the patentee.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Flipkart patent","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Flipkart-patent.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Flipkart-patent.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Flipkart-patent.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Flipkart-patent.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324672,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/19\/madras-high-court-affirms-rejection-of-iit-m-patent-on-method-of-doping-potassium-for-lack-of-inventive-step\/","url_meta":{"origin":317971,"position":4},"title":"Madras High Court affirms rejection of IIT-M Patent on \u2018Method of Doping Potassium\u2019, for lack of inventive step","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court concluded that without any experimental data to compare the costs of using filtrate material, which requires frequent changing, vis-a-vis using an external reagent, the economic significance of the claimed invention cannot be established. Thus, the claimed invention lacks an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents\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\/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":317971,"position":5},"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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317971","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\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=317971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317971\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314802"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=317971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=317971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=317971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}