News
Patent of a biological process indicator – IPAB discusses objections under Sections 3(c), 3(d), 3(i), novelty claim and inventive step
26 November 2020
The IPAB recently set aside the Assistant Controller’s Order rejecting the patent to ‘a biological process indicator, kit comprising it and in vitro method of validating a treatment process’. The Assistant Controller had held that the claims were not novel or inventive in light of the cited prior art, not patentable under Section 3(c) and 3(d) of Patents Act, in vitro methods as recited in the claims were not supported by the description, and that the claims indirectly attracted Section 3(i).
Patents – Divisional applications – IPAB lays down guidelines
22 November 2020
The IPAB has recently passed a notable decision with respect to divisional applications by referring to the relevant provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, Patent Cooperation Treaty and legal precedents. Owing to different practices adopted by the applicants and the Indian Patent Office, in the interest of justice and for the sake of uniformity of practice, the IPAB in this case also listed certain guiding principles to address this issue.
Patents law not provides for selection of claims to search and examine, as per examiner’s convenience
15 November 2020
In a recent order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) in University of Copenhagen v. The Controller of Patents, besides determining the patentability of the claimed invention, the IPAB also drew parallels between the international search report and the mandated search and examination reports from the Indian Patent Office (IPO), and the expectations from both the reports.
Patents – Fees payable by a small entity reduced – Patent Rules amended
10 November 2020
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has on 4 November 2020 issued Notification No. G.S.R. 689(E) to notify the Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2020 making certain changes in the Patents Rules, 2003 to bring small entities at par with start-ups.
Integrated tax and compensation cess leviable on imports/re-imports not covered under phrase ‘duty of customs’
09 November 2020
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the phrase ‘duty of customs’ in Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. effective from 1 July 2017 and dealing with exemption to certain goods re-imported after repairs abroad, does not cover integrated goods and services tax (‘IGST’ or ‘integrated tax’) and compensation cess.
Interest on delayed payment of GST– Proviso to S.50 of CGST Act is applicable retrospectively
05 November 2020
The Madras High Court has held that the Proviso to Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST’) Act is retrospective in operation notwithstanding the notification bringing it into effect from 1 September 2020. Interest for delayed payment is thus leviable, with effect from 1 July 2017, only on that portion of the output GST liability which is discharged belatedly by way of cash.
Stay of arbitral awards and accreditation of arbitrators – Ordinance promulgated to amend Arbitration and Conciliation Act
05 November 2020
The President of India has on 4 November 2020 promulgated Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 to amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’). The Ordinance while amends Sections 36 (Enforcement) and 43J (Norms for accreditation) of the 1996 Act, it also omits the Eighth Schedule to the said Act. The amendments are discussed below.
Disney’s successful injunction against rogue websites
04 November 2020
The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction against many rogue websites who were enabling the down-streaming of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted creative work including films and other entertainment programmes without the requisite licences. Similarly, the court also directed the concerned Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to such rogue websites and mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites of such rogue websites.
Patents – Order must be passed by same officer who heard the matter
03 November 2020
Setting aside the Order passed by another Deputy Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks who never heard the matter, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) has held that the Order should be passed by the same officer who had initially heard the matter.
Trademarks – Distinctiveness of inventive and arbitrary marks
29 October 2020
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) recently allowed registration of a mark observing that the Registrar had failed to take into account the arbitrary nature of the subject mark, failed to account for the extensive and continuous use of the subject mark and of its reputation and goodwill, etc.