Topic
The Patents Act, 1970 governs the grant, enforcement, and revocation of patents in India, defining criteria like inventive step, novelty, and procedural compliance for patentability.
The Delhi High Court, hearing T-Mobile’s petition, ordered the Patent Office to use new guidelines for applying the Section 3(m) mental-act exclusion. The guidelines set evidentiary standards and steps to separate non-technical mental steps from patent-eligible inventions, affecting all software-related patent applicants and examiners.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a remand order issued to cure a breach of natural justice in patent examination cannot be used as a vehicle for the Controller to raise fresh objections or cite new prior art not present in the original file. This clarifies that remand is strictly procedural - meant to ensure fair hearing, not to restart prosecution with new grounds - protecting applicants from procedural ambush and reinforcing the integrity of patent examination.
Madras High Court ruled that a patent rejection based on a mismatch between provisional and complete specifications must be remanded for fresh consideration, as the Controller failed to apply Sections 9(4) and 11(3)/(6) of the Patents Act. The court emphasized that applicants must be given the opportunity to cancel provisional specifications rather than face outright rejection.
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.
Delhi High Court holds that revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act remain maintainable even after patent expiry or after a Section 107 defence is raised.