#inventive step

Madras High Court rules that economic advantages-such as lower operating costs-can satisfy the inventive step requirement under the Patents Act if they are non-obvious to a person skilled in the art. The judgment directs the Patent Office to re-examine the application with a specific focus on the claimed cost benefits, marking a shift from traditional technical advance thresholds.

Bombay HC quashed a patent refusal order for failing to provide independent reasoning or address the applicant’s submissions, violating natural justice principles. The court mandated a holistic assessment under the Patent Office Manual, emphasizing that novelty and inventive step objections must be explicitly notified and reasoned.

The Delhi High Court ruled that when a patent is days from expiry, courts need not conduct full validity trials - a credible prima facie showing of obviousness under Section 64(1)(f) is sufficient to deny interim relief. This sets a precedent for expediting patent disputes where public access to medicines hinges on timely generic entry, shifting the burden to patentees to demonstrate robust validity early.