Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR630; LC2007(2)75
..... the provisions of section 3(j) of the patents act, 1970 (i) section 3 of the patents act enumerate what are not inventions in sub clauses (a) to (p). ..... the rejection of the claim is essentially based on the fact that it falls within the mischief of section 3(j) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2002 and that it is not an inventive step taken by the petitioners in as much as 3 other patentees are stated to have been granted patents for the same purpose. ..... in fact it proceeds on a fundamental error relating to the bar under section 3(j) of the patent act as well as the title and the definition of the petitioners' patent applied for. ..... hence, the petitioners' claim falls completely outside the preview of section 3(j) of the patent act. ..... it is also rejected on the ground that the petitioners' claim does not sufficiently define the invention, the title of the patented product is not clear and the title is inconsistent with the given claims. ..... title of the invention since what the petitioners require to patent is the mechanical process or the method of imprinting the message by pad printing on an organic product, their application is for providing an image on an organic product . ..... consequently the petitioners patent shows an inventive step and conforms with that the requirement of novelty of a patent. 12. ..... the patent is not rejectable on the ground that only the petitioners, who are one of the assignees of the patent, made the application. 18. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... . no doubt, section 3 of the patents act lists what are not inventions ..... . similarly a case of infringement by use (section 48(a) of the patents act, 1970) of the invention in claims 26-27 is automatically made out since nuziveedu admitted that their cotton varieties and hybrids contain the dna sequences of claims 25-27 of the suit patent and that they are taking full advantage of the functionality of insect tolerance arising solely from the use of the patented dna sequences in their cotton hybrids.56 ..... nuziveedu appeals the rejection of its application, which urged rejection of monsanto s patent (indian patent no.214436, covering an invention titled methods for transforming plants to express bacillus thuringiensis deltaendotoxins - hereafter called the subject patent ) cannot be sustained as it is an excluded subject matter, by section 3 (j) the patents act, 1970 (hereafter, the 1 bt. ..... . sandeep sethi learned senior counsel that the learned single judge, while upholding monsanto s rights in its patented technology and trademarks, erred in effectively directing it to compulsorily license the same to the nuziveedu, in direct conflict with the entire scheme of the patents act, 1970 and the trade marks act, 1999, which it is submitted, are in circumvention of the due process of law contained in chapter iv of the patents act, 1970, and beyond the jurisdiction of the learned single judge .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC712; 1986(2)ARBLR19(SC); (1986)3CompLJ66(SC); 1986(1)SCALE74; (1986)1SCC642; [1986]1SCR120; 1986(1)LC304(SC)
..... section 61(l)(d), a patent may be revoked on the ground that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of the act ..... under section 64(l)(f), a patent may be revoked if the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious or does not involve any inventive step having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in india or what was published in india before the priority date of the claim (the words 'or elsewhere' are omitted by us as the patents in the present case were granted under the indian patents and designs act, ..... patents act 1970) ..... under section 64(e), a patent may be revoked if the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in india before the date of the ..... in the plaint that the first plaintiff was the patentee of inventions entitled 'phytotoxic compositions' and 'grass selective herbicide compositions', duly patented under patent number 104120 dated march 1, 1966 and 125381 dated february 20, 1970. ..... to state that the defendant claimed as he was entitled to do under section 107 of the patents act 1970, that the patents were liable to be revoked under section 64(1)(a),(b),(d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j),(k),(l) and (m) of the patents act. ..... claims and the particulars relating to the inventions were stated to be contained in the specifications of the two patents annexed to the plaint as annexure i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... . in order to understand the meaning of invention under the patents act, 1970, as it stands today after its amendment by the amending act of 2005, we must refer to clauses (ac), (j) and (ja) of section 2(1) of the act [clauses (l) and (ta) of section 2(1) are also on the issue of invention but as noted above those provisions, though defined in section 2 are not used anywhere else in the act and, therefore, we do not take those provisions in consideration for construing the meaning of invention ..... . what are not inventions ..... . what are not inventions ..... what are not inventions. ..... what is the true import of section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970?how does it interplay with clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1)? ..... referring to section 3(d) the ipab observed:since india is having a requirement of higher standard of inventive step by introducing the amended section 3(d) of the act, what is patentable in other countries will not be patentable in india. ..... . we once again examine here what was the amendment introduced in section 3(d) by the amending act of 2005.immediately before its amendment in 2005, section 3(d) was, in the patents (amendment) ordinance, 2004 (ordinance no ..... . in certain circumstances, where it is a pioneering invention (as in the case of the zimmermann invention), the patent may be entitled to larger coverage than what is specifically disclosed in it ..... . the chapter has the heading inventions not patentable and section 3 has the marginal heading what are not inventions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... section 3(d) of the act is one of the provisions under chapter ii in the patents act, 1970 titled inventions not patentable. 3. ..... the patentability of an alleged invention is basically determined by establishment of novelty (anticipation), inventive step and industrial applicability of a product or a process [section 2(1)(j), and 2 (1) (l) of the act] to the exclusion of inventions which are not patentable listed in section 3 and 4 of the act. ..... an application for patent for satisfying patentability of an invention has to be screened through the test of patentability under sections 3 and 4 of the act which list out several inventions which are not patentable. ..... section 3 set out what were not inventions and sub-section (d) excluded from patentability the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance . . ..... - the following are not inventions within the meaning of this act (a) to (c) xxxxx (d) the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process ..... what are not inventions. ..... i respectfully submit that whether 30% enhancement of bio-availability over known substance is found or out of 30% what would be the utilization in the human system are all matters for the experts to decide. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... the defendants have made counter claim under order viii rule 6 (a) cpc read with section 65 of the patent act, 1970, which reads as follows: according to the defendants, the claim made in the complete specifications are not an invention within the meaning of the patents act. ..... one of the main contention raised by the defendants is that the various claims made in the complete specifications are not an invention within the meaning of the patent act and the alleged invention was publicly known and publicly used all over the world including india. ..... claim 1 of the plaintiff does not disclose what is the ratio or proportionate or having crgo core which is the basis for the plaintiff's patent. ..... though the plaintiff in his claim 1, claims interlacing cold rolled grain oriented steel (crgo) core with amorphous core, he had miserably failed to disclose what is the ratio or proportion of interlacing amorphous and crgo core, which is the basis of the plaintiff's patent. ..... what are the essential features of the plaintiff's patent? 11. ..... (4)to what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to? ..... to what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 153(2008)DLT548; LC2008(3)298; 2008(38)PTC416(Del)
..... in relation to games, rules and schemes (for playing) are not protectable under the patents act, 1970; they are not deemed inventions under the act. ..... or to any goods of the same description, or to the service or to any services of the same description, as the case requires, shall be deemed to have ceased on the date on which the use mentioned in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) first became well known and established or at the expiration of the period of two years mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso.19. ..... what are not inventions ..... the last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his 'ideas,' to which, apart from their expression, his property ..... held as follows:on the other hand, the teachings of science and the rules and methods of useful art have their final end in application and use; and this application and use are what the public derive from the publication of a book which teaches them. ..... but that is precisely what the plaintiffs contend, in support of their argument about distinctiveness ..... the content of what is 'original' has undergone considerable change from the previously applicable 'sweat of the brow' doctrine spelt out in university of london press (supra) to the 'modicum of creativity' standard put forth in fiest publication .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... have also put forth a counter claim and sought for revocation of the patent granted to the plaintiff under section 64 read with section 104 of the act on the ground that patent no.186857 was not patentable under chapter ii of patents act 1970 and that the said patent was granted on the application of the plaintiff without it being entitled for patent under the provisions of the act. 24. ..... counter claim in the suit for infringement of revocation of patent are as provided in clauses (b), (e) and (f) of section 64(1) of the act, which reads as under: section 64(1)(b): that the patent was granted on the application of a person not entitled under the provisions of this act to apply therefor: clause (e): that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in india before the priority date of the claim or to what was published in india or elsewhere in any of the ..... of the plaintiff for the grant of patent was duly examined in accordance with the provisions of the patents act, 1970, for short, hereinafter referred to as the act and after being fully satisfied that the invention satisfied all the requirements for the grant of a patent, the plaintiff was granted a patent (bearing patent no.186857) for the invention titled, a method of preparing a herbal hepatoprotective and antihepatotoxic composition dated 5th july 2002 by the controller of patents, india for a term of seven years .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)
..... as a counter claim in the suit for infringement of revocation of patent are as provided in clauses (b), (e) and (f) of section 64(1) of the act, which reads as under:section 64(1)(b): that the patent was granted on the application of a person not entitled under the provisions of this act to apply therefor:clause (e): that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in india before the priority date of the claim or to what was published in india or elsewhere in any of the documents ..... the application of the plaintiff for the grant of patent was duly examined in accordance with the provisions of the patents act, 1970, for short, hereinafter referred to as the act and after being fully satisfied that the invention satisfied all the requirements for the grant of a patent, the plaintiff was granted a patent (bearing patent no.186857) for the invention titled, a method of preparing a herbal hepatoprotective and antihepatotoxic composition dated 5th july 2002 by the controller of patents, india for a term of seven years .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1983Bom144; ILR1983Bom805
..... . 2(1)(i) of the patents act, 1970 as under--section 2(1)(i) 'invention' means any new and useful-- (i) art, process, method or manufacture; (ii) substance produced by manufacture and includes any new and useful improvement of any of them, and an alleged invention' ..... . shri daruwalla has contended that the alleged claim-1 and the other claims derived therefrom which merely show different types of perforations and assembly of pipes which are common in mufflers cannot be an invention within the meaning of the patents act, 1970 nor is it patentable under the said act.31 ..... . the powers to amend a specification are to be found in section 15, 18, 19, 57, 59 and 78 of the patents act, 1970 ..... a partition panel carrying perforations or openings and fitted with a perforated pipe carrying a dividing partition in its middle is rigidly secured to said muffler box so that induced expansion gases collected within the muffler box chamber are rapidly discharged into the atmosphere via said opening formed in the partition panel and the perforation in the outlet end of said pipe. 7. a muffler or exhaust silencer as claimed in claim 1 within the two short ..... on the question of ground of objection that the complete specification is not an invention and that what is claimed by the inventor is not new and that the is no novelty, the learned controller found that:--'the applicant has stated in high specification about the relative size of the holes to be provided in the inlet and outlet pipes and have .....
Tag this Judgment!