Proposed amendments to Patent Rules 2003 impact examination and opposition pr...

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry have issued draft rules to amend the Patent Rules, 2003 (available here: See). The following major changes have been proposed in these draft rules:

Useful info for securing IP rights in India

Official fees for filing Patents in India

+India Patent fee calculator
There are no additional charges for upto 10 claims
There are no additional charges for upto 30 sheets
Would you like to file the request for examination along with the application
The Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 ("Ordinance") received the President of India’s assent bringing into force further amendments to certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 ("Act") with effect from November 2, 2018. The Ordinance promulgated is based on the recommendations made by acommittee appointed by the Government to review offences under the Act.
The question of granting temporary injunctions is always a knotty one, and requires establishing whether the injunction-seeker has a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience lies in their favour, and if the temporary injunction is not granted, that the they would suffer irreparable loss or injury. The challenge before a court is to determine which facts must be considered when assessing the request for such an injunction.
Can a request for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) be denied on grounds of being the copyright of a third party? This was one of the questions that a Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recently dealt with. The case related to the issue of disclosure under the RTI Act, where a person sought information regarding the plans submitted to public authorities by a real estate developer.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India in M/S Shriram EPC Limited vs Rioglass Solar Sa has ruled that it is not necessary for a foreign arbitral award to be stamped. This judgement has put to rest an issue on which various High Courts of India had given differing opinions.
The business of online marketplaces is set to change. Certain kinds of online marketplaces need to now start disclosing details of the sellers that offer products on their websites, obtain authenticity certificates for the products that are being sold; and enter into agreements with sellers to prevent counterfeits from being offered for sale online. These are some implications of a recent decision of the Delhi High Court, which clarifies certain issues around internet intermediaries that are online marketplaces.
In a recent case before the Bombay High Court, although there appeared to be no infringing sale taking place at the time of the matter being decided, the court found enough indication in the past actions of the defendant company to suggest that infringement was sufficiently likely in the future so as to grant a temporary injunction. This case came up before the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court (Super-Max Ipr Holdings AG vs Tigaksha Metallics Pvt Ltd.
Can the Controller of Designs refuse to register a design for lacking novelty after the applicant deletes some representations of the design on the recommendation of the examiner? A recent decision of the Calcutta High Court points out that an examination report only facilitates the controller’s final decision, and concludes that a design application can be refused registration even after it is amended. The decision also clarifies the role of the examiner and controller in the design registration process.
Essenese Obhan, Managing Partner at Obhan & Associates, explores the two clauses that clarify how a nucleic acid sequence, without indication of a function, does not contain any technical information and is not a patentable invention. The key requirement of patentability is that the invention must be ‘capable of industrial application’; claim construction must be based on it being non-obvious and useful. These are the aspects studied to understand why nucleic acid sequences don’t fall in the the patentable category.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act") was implemented with the intention of amending the law related to promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques. The Act has been amended time and again to ensure and enhance the trust in negotiable instruments. In furtherance to this, an amendment to the Act has been passed by introducing the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2017 which was given the Presidential assent on the 2nd of August 2018, making the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 ("Amendment Act") come into existence. In furtherance to the assent, the Amendment Act has become effective from the 1st of September 2018, after being notified in the official gazette.
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court in Bigtree Entertainment v Brain Seed Sportainment, recently denied the Plaintiffs (www.bookmyshow.com), an interim injunction against the Defendant’s use of the domain bookmysports.com.
In a recent case, Kamdhenu, manufacturers of steel rods had obtained a design registration in 2014 for a certain type of steel bars it was manufacturing. It alleged that Aashiana had infringed its registered design, and successfully obtained an interim injunction against the latter company.A speedy disposal of the injunction was issued once the matter was contested by Aashiana. Here’s a look at what led to this rather quick decision by the court and what it could mean towards ensuring that the rights of the parties are truly protected in theory as well as practice.
The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 ("Amendment Act") has brought about significant amendments to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("Act"), the critical one being that specific performance is now (unless a case falls within the exceptions) the norm instead of a discretionary power with Indian Courts. Our present series of articles focus on the four exceptions to the specific performance rule. In Part 1 of the series we discussed substituted performance, in Part 2 we discussed contracts that involve a continuous duty which cannot be supervised by Courts, in Part 3 we discussed contracts involving personal qualifications and in this Part 4 we shall discuss the fourth exception that has been carved out i.e. contracts that are determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced.