The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No.25
23rd June, 2021
This week’s judgement is from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai Bench which discusses the objection on lack of inventive step of the claim in respect to an invention pertaining to transformation events in cotton plants. This week’s blog post gives a summary of statutory provisions concerning patentability of Computer related inventions. This week we continue with the topic of drafting, the Body of Claims.
PATENT CASE LAW SUMMARY
Dow Agrosciences LLC v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Dow Agrosciences appealed before the IPAB against the order passed by the Controller refusing the grant of patent on the ground of lack of inventive step over the cited prior arts. According to the appellant, claims were directed at a very specific insertion of poly nucleotide sequences into the cotton genome making it inventive. The court in this case accepted the contention of appellant and held that the subject invention is novel and inventive, setting aside the impugned order. Read more
Patentability of Computer Related Inventions
Since patents are granted to inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, it is important to ascertain from the nature of the claimed Computer-related invention on whether it satisfies the criteria of patentability. This blog post explores the provisions of Indian patent law with respect to Computer-related inventions. It also highlights specific guidelines for computer related inventions and Manual of Patent office practice and procedure concerning such inventions. Read more
DRAFTING A PATENT – BODY OF CLAIMS
- If a claim is in subparagraph form, the first word of each element or main clause of claim is intended to distinguish each element.
- A major claim element may include many other elements. These elements may be or need not be in separate subparagraphs.
That’s all folks for this week!