Remove 2005 Remove Confidentiality Remove Invention
article thumbnail

“Right to Access a Public Record” vs “Right to not Communicate the Work”: Where is Public Interest?”

SpicyIP

In Rajeev Kumar vs Jamia Millia Islamia (12th April 2021), an extremely interesting tussle was seen with the copyright over a thesis being pitted against a person’s right to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 12 ) or anywhere else, because granting of patents necessarily includes publication of invention.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 26- March 3)

SpicyIP

Other Posts Journey Through “Januarys” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present) Image from here Sit back, relax, and sift through the pages of January’s posts on SpicyIP! Read Tejaswini’s post to know more about the decision and how it fares with the MHC order on Section 3(i) in the Chinese University of Hong Kong case.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Some Concerns about the Amendment Process to Key Patent Levers: A “Captured” Patent Office?

SpicyIP

This is because they allow competitors to the patent applicant, who are more likely to be more familiar with the invention sought to being patented, to contribute to the examination process by bringing forth the latest “prior art” to the attention of the Patent Office.

Patent 52
article thumbnail

Patentability of Food Recipes and the Section 3(e) Challenge

IIPRD

After the Patent Amendment Act 2005, patent protection for food, pharma and chemical inventions is possible but this concept not very popular in India. A patent is a set of rights granted by the government to the inventor for his invention. It should be non-obvious or an inventive step. The answer is yes.

Patent 40
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 6- November 12)

SpicyIP

Journey Through “Octobers” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present) The October “Flashbacks” are here! Lokesh covers another super interesting round of discussions stemming from SpicyIP’s Octobers (2005-present)! And how far does the court’s interpretation of these provisions apply to such inventions?

IP 59
article thumbnail

Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc.: A High Profile Trade Secrets Case Shows the Limits of Circumstantial Evidence

LexBlog IP

It also noted that the public statements of Archer’s senior officers were ambiguous and not necessarily conclusive that confidential information of Wisk Aero’s was brought by and used by its engineers when they joined Archer and developed its air taxi. If you thought so, you would be wrong. As the U.S. Cordis Corp., 3d 592, 600-601 (6th Cir.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 18- December 24)

SpicyIP

From an in-depth discussion on the terms of copyright and translations in India to the recent UK Supreme Court’s order regarding the patentability of inventions by an AI, we had some engaging posts on this blog this week. The Court directed the NBA to determine whether the invention relates to biological resource with a reasoned order.