Intellectual Property Rights Annual Digest 2025- Part 3

Patents Act, 1970 International Reports US Court Orders EscapeX, Lawyers To Pay Google USD 2.5 Lakh As Cost For Frivolous Patent Suit Case Title: EscapeX IP LLC v. Google LLC The U.S. Federal Circuit upheld orders directing EscapeX to pay Google over USD 2.5 lakh in attorney fees, finding that EscapeX filed a frivolous patent suit and then prolonged the case with an equally baseless post-judgment motion. The Court also affirmed additional sanctions against EscapeX and its lawyers for multiplicity of proceedings. High Court Reports Computer-Related Invention Not Barred U/S 3(k) Patents Act If It Demonstrates Technical Contribution: Madras High Court Case Title: Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 The Madras High Court set aside the Patent Office's refusal of patent application for “Graphic Representations of Data Relationship,” holding that the invention involved an inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) and was not excluded as a “computer programme per se” under Section 3(k). Invention Requiring Destruction Of Human Embryos Not Patentable: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Shroff Geeta v. Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design Case No.: IPDPTA/88/2023 The Calcutta High Court affirmed the Patent Office's refusal of a patent relating to human embryonic stem cells under Section 3(b), holding that the invention required destruction of human embryos and was therefore unethical and contrary to public order. Delhi High Court Rejects FMC's Plea to Block Natco Insecticide Over Patent Dispute Case Title: FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518 Dismissing FMC's request for interim relief, the Delhi High Court held that Natco had raised a credible validity challenge to Claim 12 of FMC's IN'645 patent. The Court found that FMC's earlier patent IN'104 disclosed the same intermediate compound, supporting Natco's Gillette defence. Bombay High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Rejection, Orders Fresh Consideration of Medical Therapeutic Device Patent Case Title: Hemant Karamchand Rohera v. Controller General of Patents and Designs & Anr. Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 11 of 2022 The Bombay High Court remanded a rejected patent application for fresh consideration, holding that the Patent Office failed to follow mandatory procedures under Sections 14 and 15, had not issued specific objections and passed a non-speaking order. The Court also held that non-disclosure of a prior review petition did not amount to suppression warranting dismissal. Madras High Court Asks Patent Office To Re-Evaluate Objections Against Allied Metallurgical's Anti-Stick Coating Patent Case Title: Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. Case No.: C.M.A. (PT) No. 43 of 2023 The Madras High Court set aside the Patent Office's order refusing Hi Tech Chemicals' challenge to an anti-stick coating patent owned by Allied Metallurgical Products. The Court held that the reasoning on obviousness was inadequate, noting that the Patent Office failed to explain why key objections on novelty, inventive step and technical advantage were rejected. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Medilabo's Patent For Neurodegenerative-Disease Drug Case Title: Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2024 The Delhi High Court quashed the refusal of Medilabo's patent application relating to a pharmaceutical composition, holding that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims and wrongly applied the bar on “methods of treatment” under Section 3(i). The Court held that patentability must be assessed based solely on the amended claims, and mere references to the word “treatment” in the specification cannot attract Section 3(i). Delhi High Court Quashes Patent Office Order, Sends Trident's 'Air Rich Yarn' Patent Plea Back For Review Case Title: Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022 The Delhi High Court overturned the refusal of Trident's patent application for “air rich” yarn technology, finding that the Patent Office failed to assess the core inventive feature i.e., homogeneous pore distribution across the yarn's radial cross-section. The Court held that the refusal lacked a proper obviousness analysis, overlooked detailed examples in the specification, and failed to show how prior art taught the invention. Madras High Court Quashes Order Allowing Pfizer To Seek Documents From Indian Drug Manufacturer For US Suit Case Title: Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 445 The Madras High Court has overturned a Single Judge's order that had permitted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a United...

Intellectual Property Rights Annual Digest 2025- Part 3

Ayushi Shukla

Tags