Author name: Rajiv Kr. Choudhry

Rajiv did his engineering from Nagpur University in 2000 in electronics design technology. He has completed his LL.B. from Delhi University, Law Center II in 2006, while working as an engineer at ST Microelectronics in NOIDA. After his LL.B., he went on to The George Washington Univeristy, Washington DC to do his LL.M. in 2007. After his LL.M., he has worked in the US at a prestigious IP law firm based out of Philadelphia. Till 2014, he was Of-Counsel to a Noida based IP law firm where he specialized in advising clients on wireless, telecommunication, and high technology. Rajiv is the founder of Tech Law Associates, a New Delhi based law firm specializing in IP law, with a focus on high - technology, and patent law. His core IP interest areas are the intersection of technology and IP, Indian IP policy, innovation, and telecommunications patents. He is also an inventor with pending applications in machine-to-machine communications domain (WO2015029061).

March 2012: Controller’s decisions at the IPO

/ By / Uncategorized

In the month of March 2012, the Controller’s at the IPO did not grant a single patent in actions before them; 23-0.  Although, 15 decisions were issued this month relating to section 3(k), we are unable to provide our case specific comments.  This is because none of these decisions (3(k)) is more than 2 pages with the operative text in a single paragraph.  These 15, 3(k) decisions came from a single Assistant Controller.  All these 3(k) decisions have a common […]

March 2012: Controller’s decisions at the IPO Read More »

Mayo v. Prometheus: Natural law ++ Significant application ~ Patent

/ By / Drug Regulation, Patent

The United States (US) Supreme Court recently invalidated an extremely broad patent, allowed by the Federal Circuit (CAFC), covering a method for determining the proper dose of a drug used to treat autoimmune disorders.  We had previously, in a guest post by Sooraj Abraham, briefly discussed about the case, Mayo Medical  Labs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.  This post provides a briefly discusses the judgment   in Mayo, and its implications upon Indian patent law.   In Mayo, a unanimous Court held that

Mayo v. Prometheus: Natural law ++ Significant application ~ Patent Read More »

DHC brings down the viva-voce cut off marks for patent agent exam

/ By / Patent

In a recent decision, (Ms. Anvita Singh v. Union of India and Another) the Delhi High Court (DHC), has directed the Patent Office to register a candidate as a patent agent who had passed the the written portion but failed in the viva-voce.  In particular, the DHC has struck down the rule prescribing minimum 50 per cent marks in the viva-voce part of the patent agent examination.  The patent office may now give less weightage to the viva voce examination by prescribing

DHC brings down the viva-voce cut off marks for patent agent exam Read More »

Allowing multiple claim styles may fill IPO coffers;increase understanding of the invention

/ By / Uncategorized

In a previous post, I had discussed a Controller’s decision, where the Controller had made certain  observations regarding an applicant’s attempts to amend claims before a certain date. This post suggests two specific policy level changes that may be brought in by amending the rules, (rather than the patents act), to benefit the applicants, the patent office, and the exchequer/public at large. The Controller had made certain observations (highlighted below in quotes), and in my view if that is the

Allowing multiple claim styles may fill IPO coffers;increase understanding of the invention Read More »

Software patentability, section 3(k) and recent controller decisions at the IPO-Part 2/2

/ By / Uncategorized

In continuation of our previous post on section 3(k), this part discusses the other two section 3(k) cases.  For ease of readability, the entire post was carved in two separate parts.  Part 2 of 2 follows: Warning: Long post:     Before analyzing each decision, section (k) of our patent act is reproduced (with added emphasis) for ready reference. “3. What are not inventions: The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act, — …(k)              a mathematicalor business method or

Software patentability, section 3(k) and recent controller decisions at the IPO-Part 2/2 Read More »

Software patentability, section 3(k) and recent controller decisions at the IPO-Part 1/2

/ By / Uncategorized

In a recent post, we had provided a list of decisions issued by the Controller, at our patent office (“IPO”).  A few of those decisions related to Section 3(k).  This post analyzes those two 3(k) decisions, and one 3(k) recent decision, issued late February at the IPO.  In addition, this post provides a list of Controller’s decisions issued in the month of February 2012.  The 3(k) decisions have been highlighted separately in the table below.  In two of the cases (January), the Controller got it

Software patentability, section 3(k) and recent controller decisions at the IPO-Part 1/2 Read More »

Guest Post: Mayo v Prometheus-a critique

/ By / Patent

We are pleased to bring to our readers another guest piece by Sooraj K. Abraham, on the learning of the Mayo v. Prometheus case. The post is a critique of the oral arguments in the ongoing case of Mayo v. Prometheus in the Supreme Court of the United States. The author seeks to analyze the dynamic approach with which the Judges are in the process of tackling the concept of preemption with regard to patenting of life science inventions.  Warning: Long post follows.

Guest Post: Mayo v Prometheus-a critique Read More »

No patent for Bristol’s infant formula at the IPO: 4807/CHENP/2006

/ By / Patent

This post illustrates the current patent office view on claim amendments after national phase entry but before examination.  Claim amendments that ensure compliance with jurisdictional norms before the issuance of an office action/FER are not acceptable. Edit: To be clear, no amendment is allowed at the time of filing the application, but amendments are allowed after filing. However, this view (claim amendments that ensure compliance with jurisdictional norms not acceptable before issuance of an office action/FER), in my opinion, is not correct

No patent for Bristol’s infant formula at the IPO: 4807/CHENP/2006 Read More »

Controller’s Decisions: Summary January 2012

/ By / Patent

This post provides a summary of the Controller’s decisions issued in January 2012.  The general trend of more refusals than allowances continues. I would not take names but some controllers have not given a single allowance since a long time.  And only time would tell whether at least one applicant is able to convince them to take a contrary view and issue an allowance, rules and law permitting.  There are quite a few interesting decisions related to sections 3(k), divisional

Controller’s Decisions: Summary January 2012 Read More »

Yahoo v. Controller, and Rediff: Business Methods are not patentable.

/ By / Patent

In one of its first major decisions involving patentability of business method patents (available here), the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has ruled (December 8, 2011) that pure business methods are not patentable in India.  This post provides an overview of the decision and its implications for the patent community:  (1) Business methods are not patentable in India; and (2) Any refusal of a patent under section 25(1) of the Act may be appealed to the IPAB as it relates to an order

Yahoo v. Controller, and Rediff: Business Methods are not patentable. Read More »

Scroll to Top