Michigan State University Vs. The Assistant Controller Case Study
4. Michigan State University vs The Assistant Controller
[Intellectual Property Appellate Board]
Facts:
The original patent titled ‘transgenic plants producing polyhydroxyalkanoates’ with a patent application no. being 661/Del/92. The patent was granted and provided with the no.178865. Later on, the Patents office objected due to plurality of distinct inventions and a divisional application was filed u/s 16 of the patents act in 1996 [1699/Del/96]. Another divisional application was filed in 1996, which was accepted in 2000 [1986/Del/96]. Both the divisional applications relates to plants having modified genes and the plant promoter DNA sequence in 1st divisional application had been obtained through recombinant techniques. The main objection …show more content…
The Court also held that any order provided without a citing a proper reason may be violate of natural justice.
5. Zentaris IVF GMBH
[Decision of the Controller]
Facts:
The claim was for the treatment of fertility disorders and had consisted of 6 claims. It was challenged on grounds of lack of any inventive step and s. 3(i) of the Act.
Conclusion:
The Controller based his decision on the description as it was originally filed by the applicant. The description was read into as an invention to improve the treatment, which cannot be granted a patent as per s. 3(i) of the Act. therefore the patent was not granted.
6. M/s Microsoft Corporation
[Decision of the Controller]
Facts:
An application for Patent for an invention titled " SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DIGITAL IMAGES SCHEMA FOR ORGANIZING UNITS OF INFORMATION MANAGEABLE BY A HARDWARE/SOFTWARE INTERFACE SYSTEM” was filed by M / s. MICROSOFT CORPORATION and the same was allotted Application Number. 1840/DELNP/2005 dated …show more content…
The agents had mentioned that the invention was not purely software and the invention involved a piece of hardware component. This, according to the Controller put the invention beyond the scope of s. 3(k). Hence, the patent was awarded.
8. Dr. Degapudi Janardhana Reddy & Mr. Lakshmanan Narayanan
[Decision of the Controller]
Facts:
The applicants filed an application for patenting a “back to back replica facility for note book lap top computer” and requested for hearing.
.
Conclusion:
The Controller decided that the invention would not constitute an invention under s. 2(1)(j) of the Act as there is not inventive step which is involved. Thus, in order for any patent to exist, there must be an inventive step involved.
9. Kemesa Inc.
[Decision of the Controller]
Facts:
The applicants filed an application for patenting a “method for protecting against theft and a system thereof”. The FER (First Examination Report) had several objections. The FER stated that a mere inclusion of well-known methods is not to be considered as involving any new technical process, and is thus not patentable u/s 3(k) of the Act.
.
[Intellectual Property Appellate Board]
Facts:
The original patent titled ‘transgenic plants producing polyhydroxyalkanoates’ with a patent application no. being 661/Del/92. The patent was granted and provided with the no.178865. Later on, the Patents office objected due to plurality of distinct inventions and a divisional application was filed u/s 16 of the patents act in 1996 [1699/Del/96]. Another divisional application was filed in 1996, which was accepted in 2000 [1986/Del/96]. Both the divisional applications relates to plants having modified genes and the plant promoter DNA sequence in 1st divisional application had been obtained through recombinant techniques. The main objection …show more content…
The Court also held that any order provided without a citing a proper reason may be violate of natural justice.
5. Zentaris IVF GMBH
[Decision of the Controller]
Facts:
The claim was for the treatment of fertility disorders and had consisted of 6 claims. It was challenged on grounds of lack of any inventive step and s. 3(i) of the Act.
Conclusion:
The Controller based his decision on the description as it was originally filed by the applicant. The description was read into as an invention to improve the treatment, which cannot be granted a patent as per s. 3(i) of the Act. therefore the patent was not granted.
6. M/s Microsoft Corporation
[Decision of the Controller]
Facts:
An application for Patent for an invention titled " SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DIGITAL IMAGES SCHEMA FOR ORGANIZING UNITS OF INFORMATION MANAGEABLE BY A HARDWARE/SOFTWARE INTERFACE SYSTEM” was filed by M / s. MICROSOFT CORPORATION and the same was allotted Application Number. 1840/DELNP/2005 dated …show more content…
The agents had mentioned that the invention was not purely software and the invention involved a piece of hardware component. This, according to the Controller put the invention beyond the scope of s. 3(k). Hence, the patent was awarded.
8. Dr. Degapudi Janardhana Reddy & Mr. Lakshmanan Narayanan
[Decision of the Controller]
Facts:
The applicants filed an application for patenting a “back to back replica facility for note book lap top computer” and requested for hearing.
.
Conclusion:
The Controller decided that the invention would not constitute an invention under s. 2(1)(j) of the Act as there is not inventive step which is involved. Thus, in order for any patent to exist, there must be an inventive step involved.
9. Kemesa Inc.
[Decision of the Controller]
Facts:
The applicants filed an application for patenting a “method for protecting against theft and a system thereof”. The FER (First Examination Report) had several objections. The FER stated that a mere inclusion of well-known methods is not to be considered as involving any new technical process, and is thus not patentable u/s 3(k) of the Act.
.