| |

UNDERSTANDING THE AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE PATENTS RULES, 2003 BY PATENTS (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2020

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 159 of the Patents Act, 1970, the Central Government has on 19th October, 2020 amended the Patents Rules, 2003 vide the Patents (Amendment) Rules 2020. The key changes to the Patents Rules, 2003 by the Patents (Amendment) Rules 2020 are: 1. Rule 21 which deals with the ‘Filing…

| |

Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.

 Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. 2014 (60) PTC 277 (Bom) BRIEF FACTS: The Petitioner had filed the present petition[1] being aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter ‘IPAB’) dated 4th March, 2013 vide which IPAB upheld the order of the Controller of Patents dated 9th March, 2012…

|

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. W.P.(C) No.3679 of 2014 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Date of decision: 9th October, 2014 Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Controller General), Government of India passed an office order dated 8th June, 2012. Clause 3 of the same…

| |

Microsoft v. Motorola

Microsoft v. Motorola C.A No. C10-18230LR FACTS: In October 2010, Motorola sent two letters[1] to Microsoft, offering to license its H.264 and 802.11 Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) on terms that, Microsoft calculated, would result in a royalty of $4 billion. These two SEPs related to certain Wi-Fi and video compression SEPs. Microsoft responded by filing…