Claim Amendments Must Adhere to the Scope of Last Amended Claims, Clarifies the Controller

/ By / Patent

In an important order concerning claim amendments, the Controller has recently ruled that any new amendments to the claims cannot exceed the scope of the lastly amended claims. The decision was passed by Dr. S. P. Subramaniyan and concerned the patent application number 9790/ CHENP/ 2011 filed by M/s. Nippon Shinyaku Co. Ltd.  Here, the applicant originally filed 11 claims, with claims 1-3 related to crystal forms I, II, and III; claims 4-8 related to composition/product; and claims 9-11 related […]

Claim Amendments Must Adhere to the Scope of Last Amended Claims, Clarifies the Controller Read More »

Calcutta High Court Notifies IPD Rules: A Quick Comparison 

/ By / Copyright, Design, Geographical Indication, Patent, Plant Variety Protection, Trade Secret, Trademark

On September 20, the notification for the Calcutta High Court’s IP Division Rules were published in the Kolkata Gazette, making it the newest High Court, after Delhi and Madras, to have its own dedicated IP Division and relevant Rules. These Rules, officially called as “The Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, 2023”, (Cal HC IPD Rules or Final Rules) are drafted consequent to the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board via the Tribunal Reforms

Calcutta High Court Notifies IPD Rules: A Quick Comparison  Read More »

Blackberry Innovates!: Understanding Algorithm Exclusion u/s. 3(k)

/ By / Patent

On 30th August 2024, the DHC gave out two decisions on appeal against the rejection of two Patent applications filed by Blackberry Limited. In this post, I will refer to the two decisions as Blackberry I and Blackberry II. Here, I will contrast the two judgements and answer whether the reasoning employed in them is consistent and reconcilable. I also mention the Mayo Test from the U.S. to understand how it applies in the Indian context, specifically 3(k), and whether the Indian Courts, knowingly or

Blackberry Innovates!: Understanding Algorithm Exclusion u/s. 3(k) Read More »

Of Clinical Trial Waivers in India: The Misses Outweigh the Hits

/ By / Data Exclusivity, Drug Regulation

In light of the executive order waiving the requirement to conduct clinical trials for new drugs approved in a few selected jurisdictions, we are pleased to bring to you this guest post by Md. Sabeeh Ahmad, discussing the implications of this executive order. Sabeeh is an Advocate and is a law graduate from AMU, Aligarh. His previous posts can be accessed here. Of Clinical Trial Waivers in India: The Misses Outweigh the Hits By Md. Sabeeh Ahmad The Drug Controller General

Of Clinical Trial Waivers in India: The Misses Outweigh the Hits Read More »

Part II-Artificial Neural Networks: Are They Mathematical Methods or Computer Programmes, or Does it Even Matter?

/ By / Patent

Continuing the discussion on patentability of Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), in Part II of his two part guest post, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan explores the situation in India vis a vis ANNs and application of Section 3(k). Bharathwaj is a student at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur and loves reading books and IP law. His previous posts can be accessed here, here and here. Part II-Artificial Neural Networks: Are They Mathematical Methods or Computer Programmes, or Does it Even

Part II-Artificial Neural Networks: Are They Mathematical Methods or Computer Programmes, or Does it Even Matter? Read More »

Part I-Artificial Neural Networks: Are They Mathematical Methods or Computer Programmes, or Does it Even Matter?

/ By / Patent

In light of the UK and EU decisions in the Emotional Perception AI Ltd and Mitsubishi cases, respectively, regarding the patentability of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan examines the situation in India and analyzes whether ANNs would fall under the ambit of Section 3(k) interpretations by the courts. Part I of his two part guest post deals with the above decisions of the UK Court of Appeal and European Patent Office’s Board of Appeal, and Part II deals with how Indian courts may

Part I-Artificial Neural Networks: Are They Mathematical Methods or Computer Programmes, or Does it Even Matter? Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 16-September 22)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the posts on some of the recent controversies concerning CGPDTM, establishment of a Committee to draft a code of conduct for Patent and Trademark Agents, the DHC judgement in the 23 year old Lacoste- Crocodile trademark dispute, and the DHC order retraining T-series from using “Ashiqui” in their movie titles. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on?

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 16-September 22) Read More »

https://www.safetysign.com/images/source/large-images/F7302.png

(Over) Expanding the Circle: DHC Allows In-house Employees to Access Confidential Documents in InterDigital v. Oppo

/ By / Patent

In June 2024, I covered some nuances regarding confidentiality and disclosures in the SB and DB orders passed in InterDigital Technology Corporation vs. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd (here and here). Part I of this set of posts analyzed the SB’s 31st May 2024 decision on the disclosure of agreements between the parties and different third parties. There, the SB upheld InterDigital’s request for the disclosure of license agreements between Oppo and Qualcomm, a third-party SEP holder, on the

(Over) Expanding the Circle: DHC Allows In-house Employees to Access Confidential Documents in InterDigital v. Oppo Read More »

A confused cartoon character with caption written "I think I'm missing something.

Deciding Product by Process: The Dilemma lingers on

/ By / Patent

The Calcutta HC in West Bengal Chemical Industries Limited v. M/s. GTZ (India) Pvt. Ltd., decided on 25 June, refused to grant injunction relief to the Patentee since it could not make out a prima facie case and did not satisfy the balance of convenience. Besides from being short on reasoning (only 3.5 page devoted to analysis out of 23 pages), I argue that the Court fails to distinguish between product, process and product by process patent. Due to this unclarity,

Deciding Product by Process: The Dilemma lingers on Read More »

An Image of a red cap with the words "Make CGPDTM great again" written on front

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delays, Lack of Manpower, Pending Applications- CGPDTM in Need of Institutional Reform

/ By / Patent, Trademark

In Tiger Foods Ingredients (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Madras HC was hearing a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the Trademark Registry to expeditiously dispose of a name-change application (Form TM P). In this case, the application was filed on 05.07.2024 whereas the writ petition before the Court was filed on 11.08.2024.  Interestingly, the writ petition was filed even without applying for expeditious consideration before the registry. The Court also noted that the petitioner, showing undue haste,

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delays, Lack of Manpower, Pending Applications- CGPDTM in Need of Institutional Reform Read More »

Scroll to Top