The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No. 32
11th August, 2021
Hi,
This week’s judgement is from the High Court of Delhi, regarding the test of novelty in a patent. The Court examined the subject patent and a previous application by the same patentee to determine whether the subject patent was invalid on the grounds of anticipation by prior art. This week’s blogpost focuses on the decision by the Indian Copyright Office, to recognize an AI app as a co-author of an artistic work. While the ipr involved is a copyright, it is significant for all ip lawyers and scholars interested in patent laws as well, due to its implications for the IP regime in India and finally we conclude with a few tips on drafting Dependent Claims in a patent.
PATENT CASE LAW SUMMARY
Sulphur Mills Limited v. Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.
2021 SCC OnLine Del 3874
This judgement deals with an application for interim injunction filed by Sulphur Mills, to prevent infringement of their patent IN 282429 (IN’429). The said patent was for a fertilizer and covered a novel agricultural composition for better absorption of Sulphur by plants. Dharmaj resisted the allegation of infringement and argued that there was a case for revocation, due to anticipation by prior art. The Court granted an interim injunction stating that the defendant had not established a credible challenge to the patent. While doing so, reference was also made to the Astrazeneca case to explain that when dealing two patents by the same inventor, a specific test is to be applied to determine obviousness in a patent. It needs to be checked whether the know-how regarding the second patent was in the knowledge of the inventor when the first patent was granted. Read more
PATENT BLOG
India recognizes AI as author of a copyrighted work
For the first time in India, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) device has been registered as a co-author in a copyrighted work. Titled “Suryast”, the painting is said to have been created by “Raghav”(an artificial intelligence painting app) and one Mr. Ankit Sahni an IP lawyer who owns the said App. In an interview with an online platform, Mr. Sahni has stated that the application was accepted by the Copyright Office only after the addition of both names, Sahni and Raghav as co-authors of the artistic work. Read more
PATENT DRAFTING TIPS – DEPENDENT CLAIMS
- Omission of an element of the parent claim, in the derivative claim would make the claim not dependent. This flows directly from the principle that the scope of the parent claim should not be broadened by a dependent claim.
- This brings us to the next principle about dependent claims. Purported dependent claims must have at least one limitation not found in the parent claim.
That’s all folks for this week.
Team LexCampus