IPR Amicus: February 2018

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on January 8, 2018 has held that unless a design is not significantly distinguishable from the known designs or combination of designs, then such a design is not entitled to registration.

IPR Amicus: January 2018

Madras High Court has recently held that “dubbing” of a cinematograph film does not constitute translation and instead falls within the ambit of the expression ‘communication to the public’.

IPR Amicus: December 2017

Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970 mandates “a method of agriculture or horticulture” as non-patentable subject matter.

IPR Amicus: November 2017

Amendments of patent applications may involve amending any portion of either the complete specification, or any information pertaining to such patent application.

IPR Amicus: October 2017

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) have unanimously approved CTL019 (tisagenlecleucel) or Kymriah®, an investigational chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy.

IPR Amicus: September2017

IP law provides means by which the IP rights may be effectively enforced against infringement. However, the law also has provisions to prevent any person, especially right-owners, from making indiscriminate threats of infringement proceedings against others.

IPR Amicus: August 2017

Recently the Indian Patent Office refused to grant a patent to the Regents of University of California, for Enzalutamide on the ground that the invention lacked inventive step and was not patent eligible under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Indian Patents Act.

IPR Amicus: July 2017

The Patent Office has released another revised version of guidelines for examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs).

IPR Amicus: June 2017

One of the defences available to a defendant in a patent infringement suit for avoiding damages, is that he/she was unaware of the existence of the patent(s) alleged to be infringed.

IPR Amicus: April 2017

Indian Courts have predominantly applied the test, termed as the ‘Classical Trinity factors’ as set out in the landmark House of Lords decision in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc.