tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post6088229664291399577..comments2024-03-26T01:16:29.449+05:30Comments on The Demanding Mistress: “Inventive Step” under the Patents Act, 1970: Where Is the Confusion?J.Sai Deepakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08357301068067861565noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-67512303845100932932014-05-16T21:18:14.651+05:302014-05-16T21:18:14.651+05:30 It could be pointed out here that the definition ... It could be pointed out here that the definition is using the words “feature . . . having economic significance” and not the expression “feature . . . having economic significance as compared to the existing knowledge”. But the question is how it could be said that there is an “economic significance” without making a comparison to some existing knowledge of the economic value of the invention known in the prior art. The very word “significance” requires some amount of comparison. The inventor may claim that his invention is having an economic significance, then, other may ask him “economic significance over what”, and the inventor may answer over the economic value of the invention know in the prior art. Thereafter, the next query would be whether such economic significance is obvious or non-obvious to a person skilled in the art of that invention. If it is obvious, the feature alleged to be having an economic significance would not amount to inventive step, otherwise it is. Secondly, how is it possible to visualize the economic significance of a feature of the invention without that feature having a technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge? Your comment in the light of your own reply to one Mr. Tanveer that “the law recognizes a situation where the feature may not be a technical advancement over the prior art, but may represent enormous economic value by way of cost saving.” Will you please cite one or two such a situation?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11772796606397627061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-37131920186384629432014-04-08T04:16:49.573+05:302014-04-08T04:16:49.573+05:30Dear Tanveer,
Thanks for the comment. To be honest...Dear Tanveer,<br />Thanks for the comment. To be honest, I too feel that the definition of "inventive step" in the Act could have been worded in simpler language. As regards your queries, I hope you don't mind me saying this, but portions of your first query are unclear, or at least I am unable to comprehend them fully. Let me think aloud, and please do feel free to correct me if you think I still haven't understood you correctly. According to you, (A) every new dimension/feature is an advancement and (B) even an obvious feature could be an advancement. If you are trying to say that every feature which was unknown in the prior art constitutes an "advancement", I dont see how your proposition is different from what I said because the term "technical advance", as I said in the post, appears to be a misnomer since all it refers to is a feature which is technical in nature and is new to the state of art. Whether such a feature, when it involves a technical advance, is truly an inventive step is decided by the second limb of the definition of inventive step i.e. non-obviousness. <br /><br />As for your second query, the answer partly lies in your question. The law recognizes a situation where the feature may not be a technical advancement over the prior art, but may represent enormous economic value by way of cost savings. You could probably look up American and English case laws where "inventiveness" is bestowed on a feature owing to the savings it represents, although it may not appear to be a quantum cognitive leap. <br /><br />Having said the above, I do not see an alternative interpretation to mine, put forth by you based on principles of statutory interpretation. Could I request you to support your second query based on canons of interpretation? Simply put, I'd like to see how would you discard the express presence of "economic significance" and its disjunctive use in the definition staying within the framework of rules of interpretation.<br /><br />Look forward to your thoughts.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br />Sai.J.Sai Deepakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357301068067861565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-83509138288952980702014-04-07T20:36:36.610+05:302014-04-07T20:36:36.610+05:30Thank you sir for this wonderful interpretation. H...Thank you sir for this wonderful interpretation. However, most humbly, I am not ablee to agree with it because of the following two reasons:<br />1. A 'feature' could be obvious but it could still be an advancement. Every new dimension which is added is an advancement- it might be obvious, it does not matter that it has not been done before.<br />2. I could not imagine what would be a 'non obvious economically significant feature' because when a problem which has remained unsolved for quite a long time when solved by the most simple methods leads to an invention.<br />I feel that the statute is wrongly worded for the same reasons mentioned by you. Ofcourse, I may be wrong.<br />What is your opinion on this? Shall be grateful if you may clarify further.Tanveer Vermahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12982939562082832167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-44983844059493598352013-04-02T18:40:12.392+05:302013-04-02T18:40:12.392+05:30Thanks Mahen!Thanks Mahen!J.Sai Deepakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357301068067861565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-78732077222583381622012-11-20T16:21:35.398+05:302012-11-20T16:21:35.398+05:30Absolutely Sai, rightly said.
Indeed it's very...Absolutely Sai, rightly said.<br />Indeed it's very good explanation for the most confusing term(?) in the patent analysis/litigation. Mahendraahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917257322844983232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-54185313577018713862012-03-31T09:13:07.455+05:302012-03-31T09:13:07.455+05:30Really like the way you interpret the provisions s...Really like the way you interpret the provisions sir !!!! it is important to understand such aspects of these provisions which are the basics of intellectual property laws...ayush neginoreply@blogger.com