Tag: Indian Patent Office

An important step during patent prosecution in India is the hearing. As the Indian Patent Office (IPO) tends to issue only a single examination report, hearings before the Controller are common....

Who bears the burden of translating foreign prior art? Unpack the debate on navigating global innovation, following a recent decision of the Calcutta High Court....

The lifespan of your patent just got clearer. Understand what the Calcutta High Court's ruling on Section 53 means for your innovation....

The Calcutta High Court in a recent case clarified important aspects pertaining to inventive step assessment and the admissibility of post-filing data. ......

The Controller General of Patents has ordered the removal of a patent agent from its register, following a committee report on his professional misconduct. The report was made following directions from the Delhi High Court in a case where the applicant raised concerns about their agent. ......

In a recent decision, the Madras High Court has clarified the scope of exclusion from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, pertaining to methods of treatment for animals, among other things. ......

Pursuant to the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 ("DPDP Act"), the personal data of a 'Data Principal' can be processed only in accordance with the DPDP Act and for a lawful purpose for which the Data Principal has given consent. This consent needs to be 'free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous' with a clear affirmative action. ......

The question of whether an invention for a method of treatment of plants is also a method of agriculture or horticulture, and therefore, excluded from patentability, has been laid to rest by multiple decisions of Indian high courts. This note discusses three recent cases from the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts, which discuss the applicability of Sections 3(h) and 3(i), and will significantly impact patent applications in this space. ... ...

Indian law excludes from patentability ‘essentially biological processes’ under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, but does not explain what degree of human intervention can shift an invention away from being deemed ‘essentially biological’. A recent decision of the Madras High Court attempts an interpretation of this provision, highlighting also the importance of well reasoned orders from the patent office. ......