I hope you enjoyed reading the earlier decisions.
The IPO has recently posted some new decisions.
Particularly, this post grant decision for patent IN208718 is very interesting. Assistant Controller K. S. Hariram has penned decision worth reading. What I personally like is that he has put forth Opponent's views, Patentee's views and the Opposition Board's views against every ground raised, before giving his decision.
SpicyIP did a detailed post on the decision, here.
There are some other decisions as well.
a) 1169/MUMNP/2006 is decision u/s Section 15 involving phenantridine compounds. The Assistant Controller held that 'minor modifications such as an OH group at a different location in the same structural framework' does not involve inventive merit.
b) 416/MUMNP/2007 is also a decision under section 15 involving a process to make Atenolol. The Assistant Controller held that the process claims do not involve an inventive step.
c) IN212032 (coming from 657/MUMNP/2005) is an interesting decision. The Opponent filed a post-grant opposition u/s 25(2) and the Patentee filed a response. Post submission of additional evidence by Opponent, the Patentee decided to abandon the patent and communicated the same, to the Patent Office. The proceedings ended.
Blog discussing Indian Patent Office's and Courts' patent opposition and revocation decisions
Disclaimer
This blog is published for information only; it contains no legal advice whatsoever & hence is NOT a substitute for legal advice. We assume no legal responsibility for the views/ information present here. This blog is our personal website & is not edited by our employers. Therefore, no part of the blog--whether information, commentary, or other--may be attributed to our employers/ clients. Readers should be aware that we have interests in the generic pharmaceutical business. All information on the present blog should be double-checked for its accuracy and current applicability.