article thumbnail

DHC Holds Non-filing of Written Submissions by Applicant Cannot be Used to Delay Patent Application Processing

SpicyIP

Image with text reading “Keep Calm and Expect Delays” Last week, the Delhi High Court pronounced a decision rebuking a patent applicant for causing unnecessary delays in the patent application process by seeking repeated adjournments and not filing written submissions on time. In the case of FMC Corporation v.

article thumbnail

The Times They Are a-Changin’? A Look at the Revised Patent Prosecution Timelines in the Draft Patent Amendment Rules

SpicyIP

While we are working on a separate post, with comments on the different aspects of these suggested amendments, we are pleased to bring to you a post on the proposed changes to the prescribed timeline for the examination of a patent application. The post is authored by an extremely diligent SpicyIP intern Md.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on IPR: Tipping the Scales of Patent Law? Part II

SpicyIP

Section 11 (b) read with Rule 24B of Patents Rules, 2003 concerning patent application exam stipulates a 48-month period from the date of priority or filing of patent application within which a request for examination of the application needs to be made.

Reporting 136
article thumbnail

Universal Health Network v.  Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited: Clarity on Writ Jurisdiction against Orders from the IPO 

SpicyIP

UH filed a patent application in Delhi, which AD opposed with a pre-grant opposition also filed in Delhi. Both the examination of the patent application and the objection were assigned to the Office of the Patent Controller in Chennai, where the objection was dismissed, and the patent was granted to UH.

Business 110
article thumbnail

Before the Breakthrough: Does Prior Art Include Wrongfully Published Applications?

SpicyIP

Vandana Parvez vs The Controller of Patents , dealt with a withdrawn patent application that had been wrongfully published and then later cited as prior art for the same applicant’s subsequent patent application! Despite the withdrawal of the appellant’s patent application, it was wrongfully published.

Art 105
article thumbnail

Can an Abandoned Patent Application be Revived?

Intepat

Upon notification, the applicant is expected to reply to the objections within six months, or the applicant can take an extension of another 3 months for filing of the reply. If the applicant fails to file a reply to the objections, the application is deemed to be abandoned. Author: Mansi Tiwari, Interns @IntepatIP.

article thumbnail

DHC rules on Jurisdiction for Revocation Petitions and Appeals Post Dissolution of IPAB

SpicyIP

In the Dr. Reddy’s case, a revocation application was filed under Section 64 against a patent granted in favour of Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Patent Revocation Petitions Under Section 64. Court’s Reasoning.