article thumbnail

Understanding IPO’s Rejection of UPL’s Patent Application for Mancozeb and Ortho Silicic Acid Combination in Light of the Patent Bargain and Sufficiency of Disclosure

SpicyIP

Recently, the Indian Patent Office rejected a patent application by UPL Ltd. for lack of sufficient disclosure mandated under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act. It is in this light that the recent order by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejecting UPL’s patent application (pdf) becomes important.

article thumbnail

A Closer Look at the Patent Stats from WIPO’s 2024 IP Indicator

SpicyIP

Will we finally see more patent grants to Indian Residents? It seems likely as in 2023 marks the first time when Indian residents submitted more than half of all the patent applications (55.2%)! million patent applications were filed, witnessing a 2.7% million applications, (i.e. million filings (i.e.

IP 64
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Think Twice About Appealing a § 101 Rejection to the PTAB

JD Supra Law

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) established its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in September 2012. As mandated by the America Invents Act, the PTAB conducts administrative trials, such as inter partes reviews, and handles appeals from examiner rejections of patent applications.

article thumbnail

The Philips DVD SEP Case: Looking at the DHC’s Decision on Foreign Applications and Damages

SpicyIP

Retd) Sukesh Behl ) in three cases concerning allegations of infringement of a Standard Essential Patent relating to Philips DVD player technology. Filed in 2012, the decision comes after 13 years with the litigation having outlived not only the suit patent, and the DVD industry, but also the institution that declared it essential !!

article thumbnail

Recent Prophetic Example cases from the PTAB

Patently-O

The patent applicant argued that the prior art examples should be disregarded as merely a prophetic example. 2012) (holding that prophetic examples in the prior art are still presumed to be enabling). = = = =. Cigan provides a minor counterpoint to Callewaert. See In re Antor Media Corp., 3d 1282 (Fed.

Art 130
article thumbnail

USPTO Third Party Submissions

Patently-O

One aspect to consider about this data is that it may be skewed because it only includes issued patents — We can expect that there are a percentage of cases where the third-party submission led the applicant to eventually abandon the patent application.

Art 122
article thumbnail

EPO consults on patent grace periods (again)

The IPKat

Legal Background: Grace Periods According to Article 54 EPC , the state of the art for determining novelty constitutes everything that was made available to the public before the priority date of the patent application, regardless of whether the applicant/inventor was responsible for the publication. 102(b)(1)(A) ).

Patent 132