Technology & Law

The law follows the technology...

Topics

Patents

POST GRANT AMENDMENTS UNDER THE INDIAN PATENT ACT

First posted on spicyip.com on November 15, 2010In Dupont v Solvay, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) ruled that certain amendments to the specification as proposed by the patentee were acceptable.In this case, the Controller had made a positive recommendation (acceptable) regarding additional material, which the Board took into account while deciding the petition. Brief facts:  An application for Patent was filed on 12.11.1996 by the petitioner (DuPont) for a patent for an invention relating to a “fire extinguishing composition.” The application was granted patent No. 175594 on 9th February, 1996.  Solvay filed revocation proceedings against the patentee: In its brief b... Continue reading

AN EXCLUSIONARY DEFINITION FOR THE TERM 'EFFICACY' UNDER SECTION 3(D) OF THE INDIAN PATENT ACT: CONTINUATION OF “NUMERICAL QUANTIFIER TO SECTION 3(D)”

First posted on spicyip.com on August 19, 2010In an earlier post, I had discussed about a numerical quantifier for the term ‘efficacy’ under the Patent Act.  In the post, it was stressed that the current interpretation of the term ‘efficacy’ employed “circular logic” and such logic was flawed.  The logic is circular because the Indian patent office states: “ The efficacy need not be quantified in terms of numerical value to determine whether the product is efficacious because it is not possible to have a standard numerical value for efficacy for all products including pharmaceutical products.”  The Chennai High Court in the case of Novartis A.G. v Union of India had stated that “effica... Continue reading

TEN SUGGESTIONS FOR THE BETTER FUNCTIONING OF THE IPOS WEBSITE/WORKINGS

First posted on spicyip.com  on 29.07.2010We love the IPO but there are at least few things that the IPOcan do better in order to make the site more user friendly and content a bit moreeasily accessible to the users.In the software world, Linus' law states that "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs areshallow." Therefore, this post is written to provide constructive feedback for ourpatent office.The suggestions are divided into two distinct categories-style and substance.Style:1. Use of Frames:The IPOs website uses frames. The use of HTML Frames has its advantages butmajor disadvantages of using frames are: developer (read patent office) must keep track of more HTML documents, they disrupt ... Continue reading

INDIA’S PHONEY WARS ARE HERE TO STAY

First published spicyip.com on 08.05.2011 This post covers the basic background of telecom patent litigation and gives reasons why there is so much patent litigation across the globe in this specific domain.  It provides a difference between essential and non-essential telecom patents and why in the authors opinion telecom patent litigation is expected to increase in India just as it has increased across the globe.  Also because telecom patents ultimately concern the use of a mobile phone, it is commonly referred to as phoney litigation. An ongoing case (TenXC wireless v Andrew Comm Scope, CS(OS) 1993/2010 ) at the Delhi High Court is one of first refined telecom patent case being l... Continue reading

DHC BRINGS DOWN THE VIVA-VOCE CUT OFF MARKS FOR PATENT AGENT EXAM

First posted: spicyip.com on 15.03.2012In 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 lesser minimum marks, but capped at a maximum of 25%.  Hat tip: Sushant Singh, lawyer for the candidate Anvita Singh.This decision is an extremely welcome one for candidates wishing ... Continue reading