Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When the statute mandates what an authority shall consider, then it is obligatory for the statutory authority to consider those materials which the statute mandates”
“The real challenge with a patent application in respect of a synthesized non-living substance is establishing novelty, technical advance and not patent eligibility”
Communications done under this Chapter should be in electronic form only.
Duplicate certificate of inventorship can be issued by Controller on conditions.
Madras High Court said that natural justice clearly requires that the additional evidence placed on record by both parties should be considered by the Opposition Board.
“The monopoly claim is not in respect of a business method but in respect of a claimed invention deploying hardware, software and firmware for purposes of data privacy and protection”
Madras High Court directed the Controller of Patents and Designs to decide the patent application on merits and in accordance with law.
While drawing the conclusion that the application does not fulfil the requirements of Section 16, the respondent has merely referred to the objections raised in the hearing notice.
Madras High Court said that the appellants have given complete specifications which also capture the results of the evaluation of the claimed invention against the parameters of penetration, nutrient permeability and root penetration test.
“The Court cannot create a deeming fiction on its own, where the statute does not do so. In the absence of any provision which deems a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act to be a suit, a Court cannot, even in the interests of expediency, so hold.”
“The Delhi High Court cannot exercise power to transfer proceedings between two separate High Courts as the said power of transfer between two High Courts, can be exercised in terms of Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by only the Supreme Court.”
“The application could not have been rejected solely on the ground that the plurality of inventions was not specifically contained in the claim, and only in the disclosure contained in the complete specifications.”
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Sabina and Manoj Kumar Vyas, JJ., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The present