- AI
- Arbitration
- Asia
- Automobile
- Bangladesh
- Banking
- Biodiversity
- Biological Inventions
- bLAWgathon
- Brand Valuation
- Business
- Celebrity Rights
- Company Act
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Consumer Protection Authority
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Media
- Digital Right Management
- Dispute
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Environment Law Practice
- ESIC Act
- EX-Parte
- Farmer Right
- Fashion Law
- FDI
- FERs
- Foreign filing license
- Foreign Law
- Gaming Industry
- GDPR
- Geographical Indication (GI)
- GIg Economy
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- IBC
- India
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- IT Act
- IVF technique
- Judiciary
- Khadi Industries
- labour Law
- Legal Case
- Legal Issues
- Lex Causae
- Licensing
- Live-in relationships
- Lok Sabha Bill
- Marriage Act
- Maternity Benefit Act
- Media & Entertainment Law
- Mediation Act
- Member of Parliament
- Mergers & Acquisition
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- News & Updates
- Non-Disclosure Agreement
- Online Gaming
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Fess
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patents
- Personality rights
- pharma
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Pollution
- Posh Act
- Protection of SMEs
- RERA
- Section 3(D)
- Signapore
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Stamp Duty
- Stock Exchange
- Surrogacy in India
- TAX
- Technology
- Telecom Law
- Telecommunications
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Litigation
- Trademark Registration in Foreign
- Traditional Knowledge
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
- Women Empower
Interplay of section 63 and section 64 of Indian Patent Act, 1970
What is the effect of surrender proceedings on the ongoing opposition/ revocation proceedings? Can they be linked to each other when neither of section 63 or section 64 are subject to each other? It is important to note that both the proceedings can be initiated at any time after the grant of the Patent. Section … Continue reading Interplay of section 63 and section 64 of Indian Patent Act, 1970
Read more »GOD BLESS NOVEMBER 27, 2016
Well, I am sure, this is what is crossing through the minds of the IP enthusiasts who have been waiting since long (2013-being specific) for their turn to appear for Patent Agent Examination (PAE). They were not able to do so for the want of examination taking place. November 27, 2016 has definitely brought sigh … Continue reading GOD BLESS NOVEMBER 27, 2016
Read more »Post-grant opposition and revocation proceedings under Indian Patent Act: what is better?
Patent Act, 1970 provides opposition/ revocation mechanisms to make sure that undeserving Patents are not granted in contravention of the provisions of the Act and if they are granted, they can be opposed/ revoked. Grant of patent can be opposed before as well as after grant of patent. Relevant sections for different mechanisms, locus standi, … Continue reading Post-grant opposition and revocation proceedings under Indian Patent Act: what is better?
Read more »HOW TO CALCULATE TERM OF/ EXPIRY OF INDIAN PATENT?
In order to analyse Patent infringement or to conclude Freedom to Operate (FTO) search, one must know how to calculate expiry of Patents or estimated expiry of pending Patent Applications. This article discusses step-wise approach for expiry calculation for India. Amended section 53 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 governs estimated expiry of the pending … Continue reading HOW TO CALCULATE TERM OF/ EXPIRY OF INDIAN PATENT?
Read more »Medicines Patent Pool’s Voluntary Licensing; Unique in its efforts to better treat the Infection
Efforts of Medicines Patent Pool (hereinafter referred to as “MPP”); a United Nations backed public health organisation, founded in July 2010, and based in Geneva, Switzerland are praiseworthy. The lives of millions of people in poor developing countries depend on access to affordable medicines. However, unfortunately most of the world’s population does not receive the … Continue reading Medicines Patent Pool’s Voluntary Licensing; Unique in its efforts to better treat the Infection
Read more »Does Focusing on Single Embodiment Limits the Patent Specification?
31st August, 2016 - 6:14 am
Categories:
News & Updates
patent infringement
Patent Litigation
Patents
0 Comments
This issue was handled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the SCRIPTPRO LLC, SCRIPTPRO USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee decided on August 15, 2016. This was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in No. 2:06-cv-02468-CM, Judge Carlos Murguia. United … Continue reading Does Focusing on Single Embodiment Limits the Patent Specification?
Read more »Only Common Sense Not Sufficient to Prove Obviousness Over Prior Art
31st August, 2016 - 5:59 am
Categories:
News & Updates
patent infringement
Patent Litigation
Patents
0 Comments
Can the grant of patent be rejected on the obviousness criteria based only on common sense? This issue has been handled by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of ARENDI S.A.R.L., Appellant v. APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Appellees, decided on August 10, 2016. On December 2, … Continue reading Only Common Sense Not Sufficient to Prove Obviousness Over Prior Art
Read more »Can Inventors Who Contribute to Only One Claim or One Aspect of One Claim of a Patent, may be Listed on Patent?
31st August, 2016 - 5:42 am
Categories:
News & Updates
patent infringement
Patent Litigation
Patents
0 Comments
This question was handled by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of VAPOR POINT LLC, KEITH NATHAN, KENNETH MATHESON, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants DON ALFORD, JEFFEREY ST. AMANT, Counterclaim Defendants-Cross-Appellants v. ELLIOTT MOORHEAD, NANOVAPOR FUELS GROUP, INC., BRYANT HICKMAN, Defendants-Appellants, decided on August 10, 2016. Vapor Point, L.L.C., Keith Nathan (“Nathan”), and … Continue reading Can Inventors Who Contribute to Only One Claim or One Aspect of One Claim of a Patent, may be Listed on Patent?
Read more »Post Prosecution Pilot Program (P3): A Commendable Decision by USPTO
On Monday 11 July, USPTO announced a new pilot program (P3), intended to boost the prosecution efficiency. Under the P3 program, an applicant can file a request for consideration after final rejection, statement that he is willing and available to participate in the event, along with copy of response to a final rejection, and optionally … Continue reading Post Prosecution Pilot Program (P3): A Commendable Decision by USPTO
Read more »Patent Cooperation Treaty National Phase Entry in India: 31 months Period: Effect of Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016
Under Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), applicant gets varying period of 30-34 months to enter different states with National Phase applications. In the case of India, this period is 31 months. Decisions have been given by Hon’ble High Courts of India regarding extendible or non-extendible nature of this period of 31 months. In the case of … Continue reading Patent Cooperation Treaty National Phase Entry in India: 31 months Period: Effect of Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016
Read more »