Patent

CGPDTM Invites Feedback on IP Administration in the Country

/ By / Copyright, Design, Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark

In a welcome move, the office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has invited feedback on IP administration in the country by CGPDTM, and the Copyright and GI Registries. For this, the Office has released a 6 page questionnaire on April 15 and has kept April 22 11:59 PM as the deadline to share the responses to this questionnaire. The questionnaire specifies that the feedback will be kept confidential and only the aggregate data from the survey […]

CGPDTM Invites Feedback on IP Administration in the Country Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (8 April- 14 April)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Plant Variety Protection, Trademark

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on the India- EFTA TEPA, AP High Court’s curious findings on fair use, and Delhi High Court’s order imposing INR 1 lakh as damages on Google for failing to disclose information about their corresponding foreign applications. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and

SpicyIP Weekly Review (8 April- 14 April) Read More »

Looking for the Reasons in the Delhi High Court’s FRAND Determination in the Ericsson- Lava SEP Case- Part I

/ By / Patent

This post is co-authored with Swaraj Paul Barooah. After the Delhi High Court dictated its decision in the long standing SEP dispute between Ericsson and Lava on March 28, 2024, the Court finally published the judgement on April 3, 2024. Penned by Justice Amit Bansal, this mammoth judgement runs for 476 pages (!) and deals with numerous issues like determining validity of the eight suit patents (revoking one), and infringement analysis in SEP cases. Unfortunately, despite the numerous pages, it

Looking for the Reasons in the Delhi High Court’s FRAND Determination in the Ericsson- Lava SEP Case- Part I Read More »

A meme with a picture of Robert Downey Junior depicted as patent office asking '"How was I supposed to know"

Google LLC v. Controller of Patents: Foreign Disclosure requirement and Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024 

/ By / Patent

In Google LLC v. Controller of Patents, the court was hearing an appeal against the refusal to grant a patent on grounds of ‘lack of inventive step’, ‘lack of novelty’ and lack of ‘technical effect’ u/s. 3(k). In this post, I will not focus on the merits of the case. Rather, I will focus on the part relating to foreign application disclosure, discussed in Para 53-55. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh upon the Appellant for failing to

Google LLC v. Controller of Patents: Foreign Disclosure requirement and Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024  Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbits – Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction Rejected, Madras High Court Revokes Omega Ecotech’s Patent, and Delhi High Court Upholds IPO’s Patent Rejection

/ By / Patent

Refuse: (1) to vacate an interim injunction, (2) to remand back to the patent office, and (3) to continue allowance of a patent grant! In the last few days, the Madras and Delhi High Courts have passed a few significant orders on these topics. Let’s take a look at these three orders in this quick tidbit. DHC Rejects Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction  In a detailed order passed on January 9, 2023, the Delhi High Court had granted

SpicyIP Tidbits – Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction Rejected, Madras High Court Revokes Omega Ecotech’s Patent, and Delhi High Court Upholds IPO’s Patent Rejection Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 1- April 7)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

[This weekly review is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Vishno Sudheendra. Vishno is a second year law student at the NLSIU, Bangalore. His previous post can be accessed here. Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on the Delhi High Court’s decisions in Sulphur Mills v. Dharmaj Crop Guard and Kudos Pharma v. Natco. Along with this dont forget to read our review of SpicyIP posts published in the month of February, from 2005

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 1- April 7) Read More »

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System

/ By / Patent

Recently, India and a group of 4 European countries- Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland (EFTA) signed a Trade Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) on a variety of trade related issues, including intellectual property rights. Significantly, the agreement requires India to make substantive changes to its provision obligating a patent applicant to furnish information about their foreign applications corresponding to their application in India. While there are multiple provisions in the agreement dealing with issues like trademarks and GIs (indicatively see here),

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System Read More »

Dissecting Contrasting Rulings: Examining Madras High Court’s Dual Pronouncements on Intervention in Post-Grant Opposition Proceedings

/ By / Patent

[This post is authored by SpicyIP intern Kevin Preji. Kevin is a second-year law student at NLSIU Bangalore. His passion lies in understanding the intersection of economics and public health with intellectual property rights. His previous posts can be accessed here.] Recently, the Madras High Court delivered two seemingly contradictory judgements (on the same day by the same judge!) regarding whether the High Court by way of judicial review under Article 226/227 could interfere with the recommendations of the Opposition Board

Dissecting Contrasting Rulings: Examining Madras High Court’s Dual Pronouncements on Intervention in Post-Grant Opposition Proceedings Read More »

Who’s Looking at the Quality of Decisions Granting Patents? Some Concerns from the Man Truck v. Asst. Controller Case

/ By / Patent

[This post is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Aarav Gupta. Aarav is a third-year law student at National Law University, Delhi. He is passionate about geopolitics, foreign policy, international trade, and intellectual property and spends his time reading and watching sports. His previous post can be accessed here. The authors would like to acknowledge an anonymous reader for sharing this development with us.]  Over the course of the last 2 years, we have seen High Courts remand numerous orders (read: reject)

Who’s Looking at the Quality of Decisions Granting Patents? Some Concerns from the Man Truck v. Asst. Controller Case Read More »

DHC’s Concerning Order in Kudos Pharmaceuticals v. Natco Pharma: Will it lead to Evergreening? 

/ By / Innovation, Patent

Recently, a Single judge bench of the Delhi High Court, in Kudos Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., granted an interim injunction in favour of Kudos Pharmaceuticals, restraining the defendants (Natco) from ‘manufacturing and selling, or in any manner, dealing with Olaparib, either under the brand name BRACANAT or under other brand name. In the present suit, Kudos, seeking a permanent injunction, argued that Natco was infringing the suit patent IN’ 720 (Claim 1 called ‘Olaparib’; species patent) by manufacturing and selling ‘its

DHC’s Concerning Order in Kudos Pharmaceuticals v. Natco Pharma: Will it lead to Evergreening?  Read More »

Scroll to Top