Case LawActs & SectionsOpen the app
IP Intelligence

Search Indian IP Case Law

Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographical indications — organised by Act and section, each with a link to the judgment on the court’s website.

Clear filters

5 results

· Section 117A · patents-act-1970

Patents

Bigtec Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 2025:MHC:887

An objection that devising nucleotide probes or primers is routine experimentation lacking inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must engage with evidence of unexpected effects placed on record; and the Section 3(c) exclusion for …

BiotechnologyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior Art
Patents

Kroll Information Assurance, LLC v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 2025:DHC:5096

A computer-related invention overcomes the exclusion under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 only where it is shown to produce a specific technical effect or advancement in the functioning of the underlying hardware, going bey…

Claim AmendmentComputer Related InventionsSection 3(k)Software Patent
Patents

Natera Inc. & Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2023

The exclusion of diagnostic methods from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970 applies without distinction between in vivo and in vitro processes, and covers a method whose complete specification and final clai…

BiotechnologyClaim ConstructionPatent ProsecutionSection 3(i)
Patents

Syngenta Participations AG v. Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 49/2023

Under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, efficacy is not a fixed, uniform standard confined to therapeutic effect; its content depends on the field of the invention. For an agrochemical compound, a new polymorphic form demonst…

EfficacyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior Art
Patents

Tapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Delhi High Court · LPA 836/2023

A rejection for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must be supported by a structured, reasoned analysis identifying the skilled person, the inventive concept, and the specific differences from the cited prior art and wh…

Inventive StepKnown ProcessObviousnessPatent Prosecution