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.
34 results
Monsanto Technology LLC & Ors. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Ors.
Revocation of a patent on a counter-claim under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 cannot be decided summarily; it presupposes a full trial in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly where patent exclusion under…
Biotechnology PatentCounter-claimInterim InjunctionPatent EligibilityPatentsNatera 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 59PatentsNovartis 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 SubstancePatentsOpenTV Inc. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The exclusion of business methods under Section 3(k) is absolute and unqualified, unlike the per se qualification applicable to computer programmes; the true nature of a claim is determined by its substance rather than its form or…
Business MethodClaim AmendmentComputer Related InventionsSection 3(k)PatentsRaytheon 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)PatentsSulzer 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 StepObviousnessPatentsSyngenta 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