Court settles patentability of man-made and novel non-living substance

An appeal was filed by Genmab A/S (hereinafter “Applicant” or “Appellant”) against an order dated May 30, 2016, which had rejected its’s Indian Patent Application No.4718/CHENP/2007. The application claimed priority from US Application No.60/667,579 dated April 1, 2005. A first examination report was received on February 27, 2013, and various objections were raised in view of certain prior arts and the patent application was considered not patentable under Section 3(j), 3(e), 3(i) and 3(c). The appellant revised its claims while responding to the examination report, leading to a hearing. However, the application was rejected as the application was thought to lack any inventive step, and patent ineligible under Section 3(c)[1].Continue Reading Court settles patentability of man-made and novel non-living substance

Google LLC (hereinafter, “appellant”) submitted its application for a patent titled “Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices”[i] to the controller of patents and designs on July 13, 2007, claiming priority from a US patent application.[ii] The application discloses the feature for transferring instant messaging sessions concurrently between devices and gives users the choice to mirror / refresh sessions interrupted by idle or away states. It provides flexibility in managing instant messaging sessions and a seamless continuation of conversations.Continue Reading Delhi HC dismisses instant messaging patent appeal

Patents Act, 1970 or Competition Act, 2002: SC to decide applicability on actions of patentee

Background

The Supreme Court (“SC”) issued a notice[i] on a special leave petition filed by the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) on March 1, 2024, against a Division Bench order of the Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) passed on July 13, 2023. The impugned order dealt with four appeals and a writ petition filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”), CCI, and Monsanto Holdings (P.) Ltd. (“Monsanto”) against previous Delhi HC judgements in Ericsson AB v. CCI (March 30, 2016)[ii], Ericsson AB v. CCI (December 14, 2015)[iii], Monsanto Holdings (P) Ltd. v. CCI (May 20, 2020)[iv], and letters issued by the CCI against Ericsson on July 16, 2015, and August 8, 2015.Continue Reading Patents Act, 1970 or Competition Act, 2002: SC to decide applicability on actions of patentee

MHC recommends whittling down of claims to overcome refusal of patent application due to lack of inventive step

Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC’s (hereinafter “Microsoft”) appeal against an order dated September 29, 2020, by which its Indian Patent Application No. 1783/CHENP/2012, was refused by the Controller of Patents as being obvious and lacking inventive step has been allowed by the Madras High Court (hereinafter “MHC”). The MHC directed narrowing of claims to clearly define the inventive feature and overcome refusal of Patent application due to lack of inventive step.Continue Reading MHC recommends whittling down of claims to overcome refusal of patent application due to lack of inventive step

DB of DHC sets the contours of Pre-grant opponent in an examination process

In a recent case[1], Novartis AG[2] v. Natco Pharma Ltd.[3], the Division Bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court (DHC) adjudicated on the extent of engagement a pre-grant opponent should be allowed under the Patents Act, 1970, in the course of proceedings initiated by the Controller, requiring the patent applicant to amend or modify the patent application.Continue Reading DB of DHC sets the contours of Pre-grant opponent in an examination process

‘Technical Breach’ not a contravention of Section 39 of the Patents Act?

In Selfdot Technologies (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, [order dated November 28, 2023],the Madras High Court has adjudicated on Section 39 and 40 of the Indian Patents Act and held that the breach committed by the appellant was a technical breach and cannot be considered a contravention of Section 39 of the Patents Act, 1970, and hence cannot trigger deemed abandonment under Section 40.Continue Reading ‘Technical Breach’ not a contravention of Section 39 of the Patents Act?

Court interprets “known substance” in respect of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act

In an important decision, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, discussed Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.[1] The case involved a patent application no. 7096/CHENP/2015, which claimed priority from the US application number 61/815,502 dated 24 April 2013. The patent application claimed two polymorphic forms—A and B—of a compound RTA-408. Compound RTA-048 was claimed and granted in the Indian Patent Application No. 8486/DELNP/2014.[2] The patent application 7096/CHENP/2015 was refused essentially on the grounds of being not patentable under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act.Continue Reading Court interprets “known substance” in respect of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act

Cause of action for a Writ Petition in Patent Suit stands independent of “Appropriate Patent Office” Determination under Patent Rules

In University Health Network v. Adiuvo Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.[1], Madras High Court has held that it shall have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ ‘irrespective of the location of the appropriate patent office[2], which was Delhi. At the time of filing of a patent application, “appropriate office” for that application is ordinarily frozen, i.e. decided based on the place of residence or domicile or business of the applicant(s); or where the invention originated; or based on the address of service of the applicant in India, in case of a foreign applicant.[3] Section 2(1)(r) and 74 of the Patents Act 1970 (“the Act”), Rule 4 of Patent Rules 2003 (“Patent Rules”), and Clause 3.02 of Patents Manual indicate the immense significance of ‘appropriate office’ in the process of prosecution and grant of patent application in India. For instance, all proceedings are conducted from the appropriate office, all communications related to the proceedings are addressed to the concerned appropriate office, among others.Continue Reading Cause of action for a Writ Petition in Patent Suit stands independent of “Appropriate Patent Office” Determination under Patent Rules

Summary of Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, has pursuant to the authority vested by Section 159[1] of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”), issued the Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024, to amend the Patents Rules, 2003. These amendments are aimed at ushering in a uniform adjudication process, empowering the Adjudicating Officer to enhance precision, efficiency and implementation of the Act.Continue Reading Summary of Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024

INTERPRETING ‘DIAGNOSTIC’ UNDER SECTION 3(I) OF THE PATENTS ACT

Section 3(i) of the Indian Patents Act makes patent ineligible “any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment of human beings or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products”. Two recent Madras High Court decisions, in respect of  two separate appeals filed by the same Appellant, Chinese University of Hong Kong [CMA (PT) No. 14 of 2023 and CMA(PT) No. 1 of 2023] have deliberated upon the scope of “diagnostic” under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. In both the cases, the Court, held that the word “diagnostic” in Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, should be construed, to consider processes that uncover pathology for the treatment of human beings, as being patent ineligible.Continue Reading Interpreting ‘Diagnostic’ under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act