![]() ![]() As the plaintiff did not submit any data with respect to efficacy, the Court stated that the patent validity is also in question based on Section 3d. The same is also substantiated by the infringement suits filed by the plaintiff against Milan and others in the US, where claims for infringement of TICAGRELOR have been made.Īs TICAGRELOR was disclosed in the genus patent, the Court reasoned that novelty and inventive step of the suit patents may be seriously questioned. The Court stated that the genus patent covered TICAGRELOR, and that the said patent’s specification and statements of working corroborated the same. The Court in the case relied heavily on an expired genus patent of the plaintiff, which covered several species including TICAGRELOR. The Court arrived at the conclusion based on the reasoning that the defendants raised a credible challenge to patent validity of plaintiff’s patents on grounds of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3d. ![]() The Delhi High Court in this case vacated interim injunctions against defendants with respect to species, polymorph and formulation patents relating to TICAGRELOR, which is used as a platelet aggregation inhibitor. It stated that computer programs cannot be denied patent protection if they satisfy the requisite standards under the law. The Court stated in the case that computer programs embedded in digital or electronic devices must be tested for technical effect, and that inventions relating to computer programs must be examined in the context of modern technology. The Court directed the Controller to re-examine the patent application based on the fact that only computer programs per se are not patentable in India, and that a computer program that has technical effect or technical contribution is not a computer program per se. The patent application was rejected based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act by the Controller. This case involves a patent application relating to a method and device for accessing information sources and services on the web. It stated that the Division Bench should have confined its decision to the injunctive relief in question, and remanded the case back to the Single Judge for a full trial in accordance with the law. Taking up the case on special leave, the Supreme Court held that a decision on revocation of a patent requires a trial, and cannot be decided in a summary manner. On appeal from the interim injunction of the Single Judge in an infringement suit, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court decided the counterclaim of the defendant for revocation summarily. The patented invention in the case related to a DNA sequence called NAS, which when inserted into a plant cell provides insect tolerance to the plant. Supreme Court Case Monsanto Technology LLC and Ors. Both interim orders and final judgments are included in the post. This post focuses on patent cases decided by Indian Courts in 2019. In this series of posts, we have attempted to provide short summaries of IP cases decided in India. 2019 has been an important year for IP in India. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |