article thumbnail

Call for Suggestions on the Draft Guidelines for Processing Patent Applications of AYUSH Systems and Related Inventions (February 28)

SpicyIP

The office of CGPDTM has invited comments on the Draft Guidelines for Processing Patent Applications of Ayush Systems and Related Inventions for providing clarity on the filing and processing of patent applications of Ayush systems and related inventions.

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. At the heart of this bargain lies Section 10(4) of the Patents Act of 1970 which delineates the parameters of a complete specification.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Patent Protection on AI Inventions

Intellectual Property Law Blog

In recent years, AI patent activity has exponentially increased. The figure below shows the volume of public AI patent applications categorized by AI component in the U.S. However, inventors often need to improve various aspects of an existing AI system to make it fit and work for their applications. from 1990-2018.

Invention 242
article thumbnail

Excluding a technical feature is not inventive without evidence of a technical effect (T 1865/22)

The IPKat

The recent Board of Appeal decision in T 1865/22 considered the inventive step of a composition where the only distinguishing feature was a lower concentration of a component compared to the closest prior art. The problem-solution places heavy emphasis on the problem to be solved by the invention in view of the closest prior art.

article thumbnail

Not Examined the Inventive Step Enough? Madras HC Remands Patent Application Back to IPO for Reconsideration

SpicyIP

Recently the MHC remanded a matter back to the Controller for re-consideration on whether the cited prior art would render the invention obvious in light of the explanation in the specification. Interestingly, the impugned order by the Controller has already held the invention to be obvious based on the claims filed by the applicant.

Invention 114
article thumbnail

Key Rules and Cases for Patent Practitioners Working on AI Patent Applications

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) directed patent practitioners to current case law and sections of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) as reminders as the patent practitioners continue to work in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology space. MPEP Sections to Know – Especially for AI Inventions.

article thumbnail

When can/not a Patent Application be Divided? Part I: Boehringer Ingelheim vs. The Controller

SpicyIP

We’re pleased to bring to you a 2 part guest post by Amit Tailor on the question of when a patent application can be divided, that came up in the recent case of Boehringer Ingelheim vs. The Controller. When can/not a Patent Application be Divided? The Parent Application Must have “Plurality of Inventions”.