Section 3(d) | candcip

top of page

Chadha & Chadha IP

info@candcip.com

S. 3(d): Examiner must identify ‘known substance’, explain how claimed compounds constitute new form

S. 3(d): Examiner must identify ‘known substance’, explain how claimed compounds constitute new form

High Court holds Patent Office must identify “known substance” and mention the manner in which claimed compounds constitute new form

Shivarpita Nailwal & Ankita Sabharwal

Sep 19, 2022

Featured Posts

Cinematography Redefined: Analysing Cinematography (Amendment) Bill, 2023

Cinematography Redefined: Analysing Cinematography (Amendment) Bill, 2023

INDIA: HC clarifies jurisdiction of revocation petitions and power to transfer cases between Courts

INDIA: HC clarifies jurisdiction of revocation petitions and power to transfer cases between Courts

Madras HC notifies dedicated Intellectual Property Division for hearing IP Matters

Madras HC notifies dedicated Intellectual Property Division for hearing IP Matters

From refusal to grant: India Patent Oﬃce grants a patent after the High Court orders reconsideration

From refusal to grant: India Patent Oﬃce grants a patent after the High Court orders reconsideration

INDIA: HC issues directions in view of the recurrent unreasoned orders passed by the Patent Office

INDIA: HC issues directions in view of the recurrent unreasoned orders passed by the Patent Office

HC holds no flexibility for filing request for extension to file national phase patent application

HC holds no flexibility for filing request for extension to file national phase patent application

India: Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2023 published, comments invited from Stakeholders

India: Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2023 published, comments invited from Stakeholders

Digital Health

Digital Health

Redbull's fight for “wings”; IPAB dismisses Red Bull’s petition for not being a “Person Aggrieved”

Redbull's fight for “wings”; IPAB dismisses Red Bull’s petition for not being a “Person Aggrieved”

IPAB holds claims of divisional must be derived from claims of parent (not just from specification)

IPAB holds claims of divisional must be derived from claims of parent (not just from specification)

Recent Posts

Navigating the Trademark Battlefield: The Shield of Reverse Confusion for Small Businesses

Draft Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, 2025 published by the Indian Patent Office

Digital Twin Trademarks: Protecting Brand Identity in AI-Generated Virtual Markets

Delay and Denial: Court Dismisses Last-Minute Bid in 'Sky Force' Copyright Clash

Smart Contracts, Big Impact: The Rise of DAOs and Their Legal Implications

Time For Zepto To Go?: Delhi High Court Orders Cancellation

Delhi High Court upholds rejection by the Indian Patent Office and clarifies disclosure requirements for microbiology applications

‘Beauty of Joseon’ Highlights the Beauty of Intent

INDIA- Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act: Comprehending identification of "A Known Substance"

Peter England’s Trademark Takedown: A Stylish Win

Archive

Search By Tags

Follow Us

bottom of page