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.
8 results
for “Technical Effect”
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.
Where a complete specification and the patentee's own conduct during prosecution treat a claimed element as necessary to achieve the invention's stated technical effect, that element cannot later be characterised as non-essential …
Claim ConstructionDoctrine Of EquivalentsInterim InjunctionPatent InfringementPatentsDeepak Nitrite Limited v. The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs
It is wholly impermissible for the Controller, while exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 15, to rely upon 'common general knowledge' as a self-sufficient ground for refusing a patent application without setting out and …
Common General KnowledgeFood Grade Sodium NitriteFree-FlowingImpurity ProfilePatentsFerid Allani v. Union of India & Ors.
Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes only computer programmes per se from patentability, and not inventions implemented through a computer programme which demonstrate a technical effect or technical contribution to the s…
Computer Related InventionsPatentable Subject MatterSection 3(k)Software PatentPatentsKoninklijke Philips N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr.
A defendant cannot avoid liability for infringing a standard essential patent by pointing to the existence of obligations to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms; once essentiality and infringement are establis…
DamagesFRANDPatent InfringementSection 3(k)PatentsKroll Information Assurance, LLC v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Ors.
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 PatentPatentsMicrosoft 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 PatentPatentsRaytheon 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 PatentPatentsT-Mobile International AG and Co. KG. v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
Section 3(m) contains four disjunctive exceptions: a mere scheme, rule, or method of performing a mental act, and a method of playing a game. The word 'mere' qualifies the first three limbs, confining the exclusion to claims that …
Computer Implemented InventionGuidelinesMental ActMethod of Playing Game