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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

High Court of Delhi has opined that the drawing cannot simpliciter be termed as a mechanical device to get the benefit of being excluded from Section 2(d) of the Designs Act.

Article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses a recent decision of the Delhi High Court involving liability of an intermediary in a design infringement case.