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.
7 results
· Section 2(1)(j) · patents-act-1970
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd.
A patent claim for a chemical compound is not to be narrowed to a specific polymorphic or crystalline form merely because the specification discusses particular polymorphs, where the claim itself is drafted broadly to cover the co…
Claim ConstructionPatent InfringementPharmaceutical PatentPolymorphPatentsFerid 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 PatentPatentsIntra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. The Controller of Patents
Although the deuterated compound demonstrated approximately 72% higher parent-drug exposure in the blood, the comparative studies showed substantially similar pharmacological activity between the deuterated and non-deuterated comp…
Deuterated CompoundsHeterocycle-fused Gamma-carbolinesParent Drug ExposurePharmacological ActivityPatentsNatera 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)PatentsNovartis AG v. Union of India & Ors.
Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 imposes a distinct and higher threshold of patentability for new forms of known substances, over and above the ordinary tests of novelty and inventive step. A new form of a known substance mus…
EfficacyEvergreeningInventive StepKnown SubstancePatentsSulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Adjudication under the Patents Act has to be guided by the statute rather than by a mechanical, step-by-step application of judicial formulas. A patent decision cannot be overturned or deemed invalid solely because it did not stri…
Common Bar ElementInstallation BodyInventive StepObviousnessPatentsT-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