VII Surana & Surana and UPES School of Law, National Insolvency Law Moot Court Competition, 2024
Greetings from the Moot Court Association, School of Law, UPES! “It gives us immense joy to announce that UPES, School of Law,
invention
14th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition, 2024
UPES, School of Law, Dehradun is organizing the 14th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition, 2024 in collaboration
“Inventor within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977 must be a natural person”; UK SC upholds Comptroller’s refusal to regard DABUS the AI Machine as ‘inventor’
The Court unanimously stated that the Comptroller was right in determining that the appellant was not entitled to apply for the patents simply by his ownership of DABUS.
Whether expression “any application for grant of a patent for an invention” in S. 39 (1) applies to a patent of addition? Madras HC answers
“The application for grant of a patent of addition cannot be filed earlier than the date of filing of the application for grant of patent for the main invention; it cannot be granted before grant of the patent for the main invention; the term of the patent of addition shall not exceed that of the main invention, even if granted later than the main invention”
Scope of ‘Diagnostic’ processes in S. 3(i) of Patents Act is not limited to in vivo or specific diagnosis: Madras High Court
“The line of demarcation between diagnostic and non-diagnostic tests may not always be bright and could blur on occasion; even so, there is sufficient support both in the text and immediate context of the expression “diagnostic” in Section 3(i)”
Delhi High Court requests Chief Justice to formulate Division Bench for deciding issues relating to plurality of inventions u/s 16 of Patents Act, 1970
“The application could not have been rejected solely on the ground that the plurality of inventions was not specifically contained in the claim, and only in the disclosure contained in the complete specifications.”
Invention not to be deemed a ‘computer programme per se’ solely due to use of algorithms and computer-executable instructions: Delhi High Court
It is essential for the Indian Patent Office to adopt a more comprehensive approach when assessing Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), considering technical effects and contributions provided by the invention rather than solely focusing on the implementation of algorithms and computer-executable instructions.
Patent infringement requires copying only ‘essential features’ of suit patent; Delhi High Court refuses to grant injunction
The Delhi High Court observed that “Dichotomizing the claims and the accompanying specifications is, therefore, contrary to the most fundamental canons of patent law.”
Canada SC | An accounting of profits requires that the infringer disgorge all profits causally attributable to infringement of the invention after the grant of patent
The Supreme Court of Canada was deciding a dispute between Nova Chemicals and Dow Chemicals, where the issue revolved around accounting of profits as a remedy for patent infringement.
Simplicity does not defeat an invention and even simple inventions are patentable: Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court: In a case where an appeal was filed against the order of Controller General of Patents and
Here’s how DABUS an Artificial Intelligence System was given status of an “Inventor” | Federal Court of Australia’s exhaustive decision on whether a non-human can be named as an inventor
Federal Court of Australia: While addressing the question of whether Artificial Intelligence Systems can be an inventor for the purposes of the
Artificial Intelligence Machine, can it be granted a patent for its own invention?Demystifying grant of patent to Artificial Intelligence Machine
England and Wales High Court (Patents Court): Marcus Smith, J. explained exhaustively whether an ‘Artificial Intelligence Machine’ DABUS can be categorized as
SCOTUS | “Secret sales” can invalidate a patent; petitioner denied patent rights over an invention which was available to public use prior to patent
Supreme Court of the United States: In order to craft a federal patent system that encourages the creation and disclosure of new