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.
11 results
for “Patent Prosecution”
Bigtec Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
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 ArtPatentsBoehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents & Anr.
A divisional application under Section 16 is maintainable only where the claims of the parent application themselves disclose a plurality of distinct inventions; disclosure of additional inventions solely in the specification, wit…
Claim ConstructionDivisional ApplicationPatent ProsecutionPlurality Of InventionsPatentsITC Limited v. Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes an invention only where its primary or intended use or commercial exploitation is shown, on identifiable evidence, to be contrary to public order or morality or seriously prejudicial …
FER PrinciplesNatural JusticePatent ProsecutionPublic Order And MoralityPatentsMicrosoft Technology Licensing, LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
An invention is not excluded under Section 3(k) merely because it is implemented as an algorithm on a computer; the determinative question is whether the claimed subject matter demonstrates a technical effect or technical contribu…
Computer Related InventionsPatent ProsecutionSection 3(k)Software PatentPatentsNatera Inc. & Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
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)PatentsNippon A&L Inc. v. The Controller of Patents
An amendment restricting product-by-process claims to process-only claims is permissible under Section 59 where it narrows rather than broadens the scope of the claims as originally filed and remains within matter already disclose…
Claim AmendmentPatent ProsecutionProduct By Process ClaimsSection 59PatentsRaytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs
Novel hardware is not a prerequisite for the patentability of a computer-related invention under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act; the applicable test is whether the claimed invention involves a technical advancement and provides a…
Computer Related InventionsPatent ProsecutionSection 3(k)Software PatentPatentsSociete Des Produits Nestle SA v. The Controller of Patents and Design & Anr.
An appellate court hearing a challenge to refusal of a patent application has the same power as the Controller under Section 15 to permit amendment of claims, an appeal being a continuation of the original proceedings; a compositi…
Claim AmendmentInventive StepPatent ProsecutionSection 3(i)PatentsSyngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Under Section 16 of the Patents Act, a divisional application is maintainable where the plurality of inventions is disclosed in the provisional or complete specification accompanying the parent application, irrespective of whether…
Claim ConstructionDivisional ApplicationPatent ProsecutionPlurality Of InventionsPatentsSyngenta Participations AG v. Controller of Patents and Designs
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