fbpx

TVS Motor Company v. Controller, Proof of Right in Indian Patent Application, Drafting a Patent

The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No.22
2nd June, 2021

Hi,
This week’s judgement is from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai Bench which discusses the objections based on lack of Novelty of the claim in respect to an anti-roll bar suspension system for three wheeler motor vehicle. This week’s blogpost gives an exhaustive overview of the Proof of Right requirement in the Indian patent Office. This week we continue with the topic of drafting, the Body of Claims.

PATENT CASE LAW SUMMARY

TVS Motor Company limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs
OA/40/2014/PT/CHN

TVS Motors appealed before the IPAB against the order passed by the Controller refusing the grant of patent on the ground of lack of novelty of the claim. According to the appellant, the respondents did not give proper reasoning on the basis of which it concluded the application lacks novelty and contended that the claim had elements which are not present in prior art. The court in this case accepted the contention of appellant reasoning that for anticipating novelty all the features of the invention under examination should be present in the cited prior art document and dismissed the impugned order. Read more

PATENT BLOG

Proof of Right in Indian Patent Application

Proof of Right requirement is very significant in cases where patent application is made by the assignee of inventor(s) as it safeguards their interest and ensures no application is made in violation of their rights. This requirement is satisfied by obtaining consent of inventor(s) through signatures to assign right to file application in favour of assignees who are now entitled to file such applications. The blog post gives a summary of statutory provisions that requires submission of Proof of Right in domestic and international applications. Read more

DRAFTING A PATENT – BODY OF CLAIMS

  1. A colon- semicolon form in which a colon is inserted after transition phrase and semicolon used between elements of claim are recommended.
  2. Preferably each new major claim element and sub-assembly is made the subject matter of subparagraph.

That’s all folks for this week.

Team LexCampus

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Want to Learn Patent Law?

The most in-depth online course in Patent Law in India at the most affordable price of just Rs.199 per month.

TESTIMONIALS

Firstly it changed the approach of looking at the subject. At the first instance bare act seemed dry. The lecture series actually explained 'why' of the topic and statutes. Which helped in understanding the way the things are .

Nachiket Galgali

To receive updates on Patent Case Laws, Patent Articles, Patent Q&A & more in your inbox, subscribe to our free newsletter.