― Friday, 12th June 2020 Availing Patent Benefits – A ‘Status’ Check!
Every patent office provides certain benefits to Patent Applicants if they meet certain criteria (with respect to entity size, gross income and others). These benefits may be patent fee discounts or speedy examination processes.
This article touches upon the benefits extended by IPO, USPTO and EPO to entities based on their status.
― Wednesday, 27th May 2020 Not an Equal world for AI - No Inventorship for them!
With Artificial intelligence (AI) replacing humans in myriad sectors and operational aspects, it is not surprising that AI is able to concoct its own inventions. AI-generated inventions are (and may become) the norm, however, awarding inventorship to AI under the current patent system is far-fetched. So, is it justifiable denying patent rights to the actual inventor for inventions created by AI or does the patent system merely operate on the fact that AI is a machinewith no capability to exercise legal rights even if given any, and therefore unfit to hold inventorship for its creations.
― Wednesday, 27th May 2020 First Filing in India: A Requirement or a Choice?
Indian resident inventors may decide to file patent applications in multiple countries including India or entirely disregard India and go international! This may be due to weak market strength/poor demand for the product/invention in the country.
As per Indian Patents Act, it is mandatory to obtain an Foreign Filing License (FFL) if an Indian resident inventor decides to first file in a foreign country bypassing Indian Patent Office(IPO) . As per the rules, within 21 days of requesting for an FFL, the IPO, usually, either issues the FFL certificate or rejects the FFL request.
Another option is to first file in India and then wait for a cooling-off period (six weeks!) before attempting to file in a foreign country. In this case, an FFL is not required.
― Friday, 22nd May 2020 The Missing Link - IT Act and IPR Laws
Cyber laws are defined under the Information Technology (IT) Act of 2000 encompassing legal and regulatory aspects of the internet and the world wide web. However, certain entities/intermediaries such as e-commerce websites, search engines, and data aggregators sometimes come under scrutiny for violation of IPR laws when seen under the light of IT Act. Hence, protection to intermediaries from liability, arising out of content posted by users, needs be addressed by creating nexus between IT Act and IPR laws.
― Wednesday, 20th May 2020 Keeping an Eye on India - USA’s IP Priority Watch List
India has been grappling with big IP giants such as the US to establish its stance on the IP front. Owing to a fallible IP regime, India has yet again come under the US’s Priority Watch List and is required to meet certain expectations of the US in terms of trade and other IPR related policies. However, the question still remains whether India, being a sovereign nation, should let itself be subdued by the US or have its own say in IP matters concerning the nation.
― Thursday, 26th November 2020 How Different Claim Construction Standards Can Ultimately Determine the Validity of a Patent
Recently, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC addressing the different claim construction standards used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard) and the district courts (Phillips standard).1 The case stems from three inter partes reviews (“IPRs”)2 that were filed against Immunex Corp.’s (“Immunex”) patent prior to the PTAB’s adoption of the
― Thursday, 26th November 2020 Premarket Testing of Diagnostic Medical Software Protected From Claims of Patent Infringement by § 271 Safe Harbor Defense
On October 16, 2020, the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, rejecting the argument that the § 271 safe harbor does not apply to activities that have a commercial purpose. See Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., No. 19-CV-06593, ECF No. 98 (N.D. Cal. October 16, 2020). This safe harbor provision is often invoked by manufacturers of generic drugs. However, the Edwards decision serves as a reminder that medical device manufacturers are also eligible to raise this defense, in connection with the development of Class I, II, or III devices subject to FDA approval. It further confirms that otherwise-infringing activities with a commercial purpose may still be protected by the safe harbor, provided that they are reasonably related to regulatory approval of a medical device.
― Wednesday, 25th November 2020 Traeger Files Patent Infringement Complaints Against Green Mountain Grills In The International Trade Commission And Federal District Court Alleging Infringement Of Two Of Traeger's WiFIRE® Patents
Traeger Pellet Grills LLC ("Traeger") announced today that it has filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission ("ITC") alleging that GMG Products, Inc. ("GMG"), the maker of Green Mountain grills, has engaged in the unlawful importation and sale of grills that infringe one or more claims of two Traeger patents. Traeger requested that the ITC institute an investigation into GMG's infringing imports and issue an exclusion order to bar importation of GMG's cloud-connected grills that can be controlled from any location via a mobile device.
― Wednesday, 25th November 2020 Slack Sued for Infringing “Dynamic Hosting” Patent via Video Call Feature
Remote Concepts LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Slack Technologies, Inc. on Nov. 22, in the District of Colorado, alleging that the defendant’s workplace messaging platform infringed the plaintiff’s dynamic hosting patent through its Slack Voice and Video call functionality.
― Tuesday, 24th November 2020 Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2020)
Earlier this month, in Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc., Special Master Henry M. Sneath issued a Report and Recommendation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that a motion by Defendant PPG Industries, Inc. to partially exclude the opinions of Plaintiff Sherwin-Williams Co.'s expert witness should be granted. In particular, the Special Master recommended that the opinions set forth in ¶¶ 94-117 of the expert's Rebuttal Report be excluded.