Definition:
Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.
To interpret the doctrine of obviousness it is necessary to first understand the objective of grant of Patent.
Object of grant of patent is to encourage scientific research, new technology and industrial progress and for that object exclusive privilege is granted. At the same time before awarding patent for any invention it has to be considered that the invention must be novel, must involve an inventive step and must have industrial application. These requirements are to be strictly followed before a patent could be granted for any invention in any country all over the world.
INDIA
A. Obviousness under 1970 Act
Only a ground under opposition that too after grant and Revocation of Patents
The invention was defined under Section 2(1) (j) the Indian Patents Act, 1970;
(j) “invention” means any new and useful-art, process, method or manner of manufacture; machine, apparatus and other article; substance produced by manufacture, and includes any new and useful improvement of any of them, and an alleged invention.
As inventive step was not defined in an invention, there was no such provision during examination.
Only after advertisement of acceptance of complete specification within 4+1 months, under Section 25(1) (e) not having the inventive step is a ground for opposition.
(e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious and clearly does not involve any inventive step, having regard to the matter published as mentioned in clause (b) or having regard to what was used in India before the priority date of the applicant’s claim;
Absence of inventive steps is also a ground for revocation under Section 64 (1) (f) of the Patents Act:-
(f) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious and clearly does not involve any inventive step, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India or what was published in India or elsewhere before the priority date of the claim;
Therefore under the 1970 Act onus that the invention does not involve any inventive step was on the person interested.
B. Under the Patent Amendment Act in 2003 (that came into effect on 20.05.2003)
No change in the definition of invention till 2003
Definition of invention changed (Section 2(1) (j) now the “invention” means a new product and process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application.
After which the inventive step was also considered during the examination.
And the Inventive step was defined under Section 2 (1)(ja) of the Patents Act
“inventive step” means a feature that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art”.
C. Further under the Patent Amendment Act, 2005 (which came into effect retrospectively 01.01.2005)
The Definition of Inventive step was further revised.
Now under Section 2(1)(ja) the “inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involve technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Even the official manual of the Indian Patent practice acknowledges that “definition of inventive step has been enlarges to include economic significance of the invention apart from already existing criteria for determining inventive step”.
But the expression “or” denotes that economic significance has to be given similar importance as to technical advancement and both have to interpreted in terms of knowledge and skill of the person skilled in art. Further it is apparent from the intention of the legislature that either the economic significance or technical advancement has to be present for qualifying the invention under the inventive step.
D. Approach of Indian Patent Office
1. Considers novelty and inventive step as one or the same thing.
The Indian Patent Office considered the novelty and inventive step on the same lines which reflects in the examination report issued by them.
2. Gives importance even to “A” category citations in the ISR/IPER for construction of Inventive step.
In a mechanical manner the Patent Office gives importance to even ‘A’ category citations and requires elaboration and difference in terms of inventive steps with regards to such cited arts.
3. Requires characterization in the claims-
It has become the practice of the Indian Patent Office to require characterization clause in the main claim for determination of the inventive step. Wherein claims contains two portion one pre characterization one post characterization, the post characterization portion in considered to involve inventive step over pre characterization portion and thereon the dependent claims also relate to only post characterization portion.
4. As per the Manual of Indian Patent practice: The inventive step has to be determined in the following manner.
Has to be non-obvious when compared with the state of art,
State of mind (Flash of Genius) is to be looked into, the following question has to be borne into mind “would a non-inventive mind have thought of the alleged invention?” if answer is “no”, then the invention in non-obvious. (In other words whether the invention would have occurred to a person skilled in the art, if yes, then it is obvious.)
5. Whether the invention involves exercise of any skill or ability beyond than what is expected of a person skilled in the art. Combining the teaching of documents (Mosaics) with the art.
Although as per the manual of Patent practice for consideration and determination of the inventive step, the invention has to be looked as a whole and no conclusion should be made by taking individual parts of the claims that might be known or found to be obvious, but still the practice differs from the manual and without taking regard to whole claims/ invention, objections are raised and the Applicant is made to himself point out the inventive step in the invention.
KOREA:
In accordance with the Korean Patent Examination Guideline (KPEG) the following procedure is carried out for determining inventive step:
whether there is some motivation to reach the claimed invention in the prior art for a person ordinary skilled in the art;
whether the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art belongs to ordinary creative ability of a person skilled in the art; and
whether the claimed invention has any advantageous effect compared to the prior art.
Until recently Korean courts used to mechanically judge inventive step based on determination of substantial identicalness of purpose, construction and effect of the claimed invention and the prior art, and were silent on the specific standard for determination of inventive step.
However, recently on September 06, 2007 ([Supreme Court Ruling of 2005 HU 3284) for the first time Supreme Court suggested a specific standard for determining inventive step, which is different from the precedents. The Korean Supreme Court took a different approach in its interpretation of inventive step and ruled that inventive step should be denied when there is some suggestion or motivation to reach the claimed invention by combination or aggregation of the feature in the prior art or when the court can recognize that a person ordinary skilled in the art can easily come to the claimed invention by combination or aggregation of feature in the prior art in view of the level of technology, common general knowledge in the art, technical problem, progress trend of technology and needs in the pertinent technical field at the time of filing patent application.
In Korea, the manner in which an invention was made (flash of genius) generally cannot be used to deny inventive step. Many Court rulings have admitted inventive step when they recognized difficulty in construction of the invention. Therefore, assertion on presence of flash of creative genius in the invention would be supportive for inventive step.
In Korea, commercial success alone cannot be regarded as indicative of inventive step. However, commercial success can be supplementary evidence to strengthen the argument of inventive step when it coupled with other evidence for inventive step.
Through several rulings such as Supreme Court Ruling of 94 HU 1817 (Nov. 28, 1995) and Patent Court ruling of 2002 HEO 8424 (Sep. 4, 2003), Korean courts took into account the commercial success as affirmative evidence supporting inventive step of the invention when the applicant proved that his/her commercial success has been derived from the technical feature of the claimed invention, not from marketing skill or advertisement.
However, the Supreme Court clearly takes up the position that inventive step cannot be recognized only wit
On February 24, 2021, the Government of Pakistan deposited its instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol with WIPO’s Director General.
IPAB Dissolved with effect from April 4, 2021
Office of CGPDTM extends deadline for all IP matters relying on Supreme Court order dated January 10, 2022. The period between March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022 shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation and a minimum 90 days limitation period shall be allowed from March 1, 2022.
salient features of the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 as applicable for foreign Applicant in India
Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.
Mere posting of the letter on the website does not constitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing as required by Rule 38(4) of Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The Mumbai HC held that placing the notice of the website does not constitute compliance with that Rule 38(4) of the said Rules.
Object of grant of patent is to encourage scientific research, new technology and industrial progress and for that object exclusive privilege is granted. At the same time before awarding patent for any invention it has to be considered that the invention must be novel, must involve an inventive step and must have industrial application.
The expression “inventive step” is predominantly used for instance in European Union while the expression “non- obviousness” is predominantly used in United States of America. The assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another while the underlying basic principal remains the same.
Delhi high court upheld Judgement directing restoration and renewal of trademark MBD, 29 years after due date of renewal. Notice on form O3 is must intimating the registered proprietor about the deadline of renewal and consequence thereof.
Section 33 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that if the earlier Registered Proprietor has acquiesced for a continuous period of 5 years in the use of a registered trademark, being aware of that use, he is not entitled to either seek invalidation of such later mark or oppose its use in relation to goods or services in relation to which it has been so used, unless registration of such mark was applied in bad faith.
Definition: Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.
Trade dress refers to characteristics of the visual or sensual appearance of a product that may also include its packaging which may be registered and protected from being used by competitors in relation to their business and services.
The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed...
Delhi High Court in Double Coin Holdings Ltd. Vs. Trans Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd. elaborately dealt with the issue as to who has right over a trademark, manufacturer or distributor/ importer
Delhi High Court held amendment in claims as allowed in another suit can not be allowed in a pending suit without amending plaint.
Computer Software & Business Method Patents In India: India does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme “per se” or algorithms.
Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.To interpret the doctrine of obviousness it is necessary to first understand the objective of grant of Patent.
"Non-obviousness" is the term for “inventive step” used in US patent law and codified under 35 U.S.C. §103. Thereby implying that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.
Inventions pertaining to microorganisms and other Biological material were subjected to product patent in India unlike many developed countries. But with effect from 20.05.2003 India has started granted patents to invention related to microorganisms.
Compulsory Licence For Patents In India: Any interested person after expiry of 3 years from grant of patent even though if he is a license under the patent, may make an application to the Controller for grant of compulsory license
The Government of India is finalising a system that will prevent generic manufactures from getting marketing approval to sell patented drugs in India.
India like European Union does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme "per se" or algorithms. The relevant provision under the Indian Patents Act reads as under...
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Indian arm of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd had challenged the constitutionality of India's customs regulations governing the import of IP goods in Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition. More precisely it has challenged the custom notification no. 47/2007 Customs (N.T.) dated 08.05.2007 called Intellectual Property Right (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
Chennai High Court in Writ Jurisdiction set aside order dismissing the patent applications on basis that the request for examination was filed beyond the prescribed period of 48 months. no delay or fault can be attributed to the petitioner. For negligence/ docketing error by agent, the valuable statutory rights of the petitioner cannot be completely deprived of.
Kolkata High Court held that novelty resides in 2D design too. GUI on the finished article is a mechanical and manual process under section 2(d). A software developer develops a source code which creates the GUI. This source code is then embedded in the micro-controllers and micro-processors and is displayed in screen by illuminating pixels by electronic means. Therefore, the design is applied to the article by industrial process and means.
Delhi High Court clarifies Section 64 of the Patents Act, and observed that there is no limitation prescribed either in the Patents Act or under the Patents Rules, and held that a limitation period cannot be read it into the provision. Court held that filing of a revocation petition could be done at any point in time when such a person’s interest either arises or continues during the life/term of the Patent.
Controller allowed amendment in claims and granted the Patent (as well as dismissed the Pre Grant Opposition) after completion of pleadings, hearing and submissions of post-hearing written submissions and without any notice to Opponent to respond to the proposed amendments, the Patent was granted. Delhi High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter Back for reconsideration of pre-grant opposition.
Delhi High Court clarifies legal position as to maintainability of divisional application and held that a divisional application cannot be filed if there is no “plurality of inventions”. The Appeal was dismissed with cost.
Delhi High Court interprets Section 59 and allows amendment in claims and narrowing down of scope of claims (from product to process) in view of disclosure of process in the description.
Delhi High Court clarifies that when the subject matter of the patent application is showing technical advancement over the cited prior arts, and when the cited prior arts are considerably old, it is a clear indicator of non-obviousness.
Delhi High Court Interprets Section 3 (k) of Patents Act and "Technical effect" and "Technical contribution" for computer programs.
Delhi High Court in re: Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. Vs Joint Controller of Patents, vide its judgment dated March 29, 2023 set aside the impugned order rejecting grant of Patent and directed the Patent to be granted.
Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.
Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect of one cause of action and not the other.
Supreme Court held that a composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise. Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code specifically states so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same should be ignored.
Supreme Court held that for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a court only because two causes of action joined in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same would not mean that thereby the jurisdiction can be conferred upon a court which had jurisdiction to try only the suit in respect of one cause of action and not the other. Recourse to the additional forum, however, in a given case, may be taken if both the causes of action arise within the jurisdiction of the
5 Bench of Supreme Court held that Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
The Chennai High Court held that the time prescribed under Rule 20 for filing national phase PCT Application in India is 31 months from priority date, and the period, which could be extended by taking into consideration of facts and circumstances, is one month under Rule 138. The application for extension is required to be made within the period prescribed. Therefore, proviso would come into operation for the purpose of calculating period of one month. On true interpretation of rule 138, it is h
The Controller of Patents Granted India’s first Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited in respect of Patent no. 215758 of Bayer Corporation.
Delhi High Court set Guidelines to determine jurisdiction in Internet related cases
Agreeing with Single Judge's Consideration to adverse impact of grant of injunction on life saving drugs Delhi High Court imposed Cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Appellant
Supreme Court of India, Appeal against Pre Grant opposition order to be heard by High Court though Patent Act amended and IPAB came into existence
Delhi High Court declines Cadila Healthcare's plea to restrain use of 'Sugar Free'
Supreme Courts Bars Challenge To “Peter Scot” On Principles Of Acquiescence And/ Or Waiver
Delhi High Court vacated interim injunction and directs defendants to maintain accounts of manufacture, sale and supply
No balance of convenience or irreparable loss Chennai High Court set aside Injunction granted by Single Judge of High Court
Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed, held that Challenge to a provision accrued before it is repealed is maintainable if the repealing act is silent
Mumbai High Court (DB) held that mere posting of the letter on website does not constitute communication of objection as required by rule 38(4) under the Trademark Rules.
Delhi High Court in a Letter Patent Appeal upheld the single Judge Order that issuance of notice on Form O3 mandatory before removing the mark. Restoration period to be counted from date of removal from Register not from due date of renewal
Supreme Court of India rejects Novartis Patent for Beta Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate being violative of Section 2(1) (j), (ja) as well as 3(d) of Indian Patent Act in view of the earlier Patent for Imatinib free salt
70th Council Meeting of Asian Patent Attorneys Association was held in Taipei, Taiwan from November 9 to November 12, 2020
India
Bhutan
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Nepal
Maldives
Pakistan
Worldwide
