Kalpesh V. Upadhye

Nov 20, 2024 | morganlewis.com | Kalpesh V. Upadhye

WASHINGTON, DC, November 20, 2024: Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) has named Morgan Lewis associate Kalpesh Upadhye, Ph.D., to its 2024 edition of Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists guide. Kalpesh has been named to the guide for a second consecutive year.

Oct 8, 2024 | morganlewis.com | Rahul Kapoor |Douglas Crisman |Manita Rawat |Kalpesh V. Upadhye |Kannan Badri Narayanan

The Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry in March 2024 published changes to its 2003 Patent Rules. These applicant-friendly changes include eased disclosure obligations for foreign applications, improved practices regarding divisional applications, a shortened timeframe for examination requests from 48 months to 31 months, and the introduction of a formal grace period for submissions following public disclosure.

Aug 27, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Louis W. Beardell |Robert Smyth |Kalpesh V. Upadhye

In Allergan USA v. MSN Labs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held, that later-filed, later-issued claims cannot serve as proper reference for invalidating earlier-filed, earlier-issued claims having the same priority date under obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), clarifying its decision in In re Cellect by explaining which reference claims can be considered proper for ODP analysis.

Aug 26, 2024 | morganlewis.com | Kalpesh V. Upadhye |Louis W. Beardell |Robert Smyth

In Allergan USA v. MSN Labs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held, that later-filed, later-issued claims cannot serve as proper reference for invalidating earlier-filed, earlier-issued claims having the same priority date under obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), clarifying its decision in In re Cellect by explaining which reference claims can be considered proper for ODP analysis.

Aug 26, 2024 | lexology.com | Kalpesh V. Upadhye |Louis W. Beardell |Robert Smyth

In Allergan USA v. MSN Labs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held, that later-filed, later-issued claims cannot serve as proper reference for invalidating earlier-filed, earlier-issued claims having the same priority date under obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), clarifying its decision in In re Cellect by explaining which reference claims can be considered proper for ODP analysis.