― 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, 21st January 2021 Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation: patent infringement - printer ink cartridges
The High Court of Australia has had a hand in deciding whether modifications made to an original patented product to enable its re-use have amounted to the making of a new infringing product, as we explain below.Fast forward to 2020, and we have judges staring at printer ink cartridges. Not exactly a traditional ship of Theseus moment, but no doubt the recent High Court decision of Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation  HCA 41 gives us a rare glimpse into the ship of Theseus dilemma, during which the High Court decided by slim majority, that the patent “exhaustion doctrine” should be applied instead of the “implied licence doctrine”, and that repair and modification do not create a new product.
― Thursday, 21st January 2021 Natera Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Inivata
Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA), a pioneer and global leader in cell-free DNA testing, filed a lawsuit today against Inivata, Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Inivata, Inc. for alleged infringement of Natera's U.S. Patent Nos. 10,262,755 and 10,597,709. These patents protect Natera's intellectual property in the fields of personalized monitoring and molecular residual disease (MRD) testing in oncology.
― Wednesday, 20th January 2021 Nidec Sues Seagate For Patent Infringement For Hard Disk Drives
Plaintiff Nidec Corporation filed a complaint on Monday in the District of Delaware against Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd., and Seagate Technology (Netherlands) B.V. (collectively Seagate) for patent infringement, alleging that the defendants have infringed that patent-in-suit through its hard disk drives.
― Wednesday, 20th January 2021 ABS Global v. Cytonome/St, LLC: Mootness and Preserving the Argument for Vacatur
In 2017, Cytonome filed suit in the Western District of Wisconsin (“the District Court”), accusing ABS of infringing six of its patents, including US Patent No. 8,529,161 (“the ’161 patent”). Subsequently, in October 2017, ABS filed for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’161 patent, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued a decision in April 2019 that invalidated certain claims of the ’161 patent while also finding that ABS had failed to demonstrate several other claims as unpatentable.
― Tuesday, 19th January 2021 ITC Threat for Gaming Companies Grows with PTAB Discretionary Denials
While most patent disputes involving gaming companies are located in district courts, the ITC remains a viable option for at least some gaming disputes, where a patent owner can have the U.S. government bar importation of products found to infringe. While the ITC does not provide monetary damages, it’s extremely fast schedule and willingness to bar importation of infringing products makes it a desirable forum for patent owners.