[This post is completely human authored 🙂 These humans include – Praharsh Gour, Vasundra Koul, Arshiya Gupta, and Vikram Raj Nanda.
Selection and Supervision by- Praharsh Gour, Swaraj Paul Barooah, and Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan
Research Inputs from Yohann Titus Mathew, Riddhi Yogesh Bhutada, Ayush Shetty, Sumit Kumar Singh, Shailraj Jhalnia, Himanshu Mishra, Bhavya Gupta, Aali Jaiswal, Anushka Kanabar, Srishti Gaur, Arshya Wadhwa, and Daanish Naithani.]
2025 was quite an eventful year. On the judicial side, we saw a variety of novel developments, such as personality rights cases taking a new prominence with more than 15 orders being passed by courts across the country, as well as the conclusion of lengthy trials in SEP disputes after 15 and 21 years. On the non judicial side we saw developments including the DPIIT working paper on the intersection of copyright and AI, and new Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions. It was also a remarkable year for SpicyIP, as the blog completed 20 years since Prof Shamnad Basheer put out the first blog. Additionally, we kick-started the inaugural edition of the SpicyIP Summer School and took our first major steps into the podcasting space with SpicyIP TV. Alongside these exciting endeavours, we also launched several initiatives for young IP enthusiasts, including the SpicyIP–CIPAM, DPIIT 1st National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation 2025, and the SpicyIP–Jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025.
Like previous years, we once again bring to you our lists of top IP developments that have happened across the year! And as we move to the cusp of the new year, here’s to wishing our readers a very happy and healthy year ahead!
With the number of IP developments increasing every year, there are bound to be very important developments that didn’t make our lists. That being said, we’ve done our best to ensure our lists include developments from different areas of IP as well as different parts of the country (though expectedly, Delhi has an overwhelming presence). Are there other developments you think we should’ve added? Please take a look and mention them in the comments below!
We have divided our lists into five categories:
a) Top 10 IP Judgments/Orders by Topicality and/or Impact
These decisions reflect those that we thought were important from a topical point of view and were covered by the media in some way owing to the importance of parties litigating or the issue being considered or for impact on industry and innovation/creativity ecosystem, etc. We’ve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so it’s a mixed bag of cases dealing with patents, trademarks, copyright law etc.
b) Top 10 IP Judgments/Orders by Jurisprudential Rigour and/ or Legal Lucidity: These decisions reflect those that we thought showed a fair bit of jurisprudential rigour and/or legal lucidity. However, the two categories are not mutually exclusive.
c) Top 10 IP Legislative and Policy Related Developments: This category lists notable developments on the legislative and policy side and includes important amendments, proposals for amendments, release of policy notes and reports etc.
d) Other IP Developments: (Important developments which do not fall under any of the above three categories have been highlighted in this category.)
e) Other Notable Developments: And the final category is a more general list of other notable developments in the year.
As always, a huge thanks to all our contributors, including our readers who engage online as well as offline with our posts and constantly encourage us. Wishing everyone a prosperous and a healthy new year ahead and hoping that 2026 brings in spicier IP developments to the Indian IP regime, making it a more fair, balanced and effective one!
I. Judgments/Orders by Topicality and/or Impact
- The three judgments in Lifestyles Equities CV v. Amazon Technologies Inc. (Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, Inc. on February 25 [Delhi High Court] and Amazon Technologies Inc v. Lifestyle Equities Cv & Anr on July 1 [Delhi High Court] and Lifestyle Equities CV v. Amazon Technologies Inc on October 7 [Supreme Court])
In a trifecta of judgments, Indian courts seemingly settled the position that a stay on a money decree does not necessarily require a prior deposit. On February 25, the Delhi High Court initially imposed damages worth INR 339 Crores on Amazon Technologies for infringing the ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club’ trademark, characterising the dispute as a ‘new species of infringement’ – e-infringement. However, on July 1, a Division Bench, rejecting the expansive theory of e-infringement, stayed the operation on the grounds of procedural irregularities, including the absence of pleadings claiming INR 339 crores. The matter went to the Supreme Court in an SLP filed by Lifestyle Equities CV, wherein the Court, interpreting Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC (empowering an appellate court to grant a stay of the execution of a decree), clarified that a deposit is not a condition precedent for an order of stay of execution of the decree by the appellate court and that such a deposit is not mandatory for stay of money decree. Thus, in departing from the rule against staying money decrees, the Appellate Courts unequivocally reaffirmed that procedural propriety must prevail in disputes riddled with irregularities. Do check out Khushi Jain and Vishno Sudheendra’s detailed coverage of this development, starting from the Single Bench (Part II here) to the Division Bench in a series of posts.
The Single Bench judgment was passed by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, and the Division Bench Judgment was passed by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul. The SC SLP judgment was passed by Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan.
The developments in Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. further complicated the question of whether an entity can issue copyright licenses without being a registered copyright society. PPL had claimed ownership over sound recordings and alleged its infringement by Azure. Azure countered that since PPL ceased to be a copyright society in 2012, it could not legally continue issuing licenses. A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court initially restrained Azure from using PPL’s repertoire of sound recordings, but the Division Bench (DB) later modified this, allowing Azure to play the music on payment of license fees as per the Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL) tariff rates. When PPL approached the Supreme Court (SC), it stayed the DB’s order while also clarifying that the Single Bench’s injunction would not operate. The SC’s interim stay leaves Azure free from paying RMPL tariffs while PPL remains disabled from issuing licenses without statutory compliance, highlighting the unsettled position around de-registered copyright societies and licensing authority. Do check out Anushka Dhankar and Kartik Sharma’s posts on the different orders/ decisions (Single Bench here, Division Bench here, and Supreme Court here).
The Single Order was passed by Justice Amit Bansal. The Division Bench Order was passed by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul. The Supreme Court order was passed by Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
In what could be the largest ever pre-decree deposit mandated in Indian IP litigation, the Delhi High Court directed a South Korea based entity to furnish Rs. 290 crores i.e., 25% of the claimed damages of Rs. 1160 crore, as an interim security deposit. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court passed the order to prevent frustration of CCA’s claim, considering that the defendant had exited the Indian market, declared negligible local assets, and is domiciled in a country with no reciprocal enforcement. This decision reflects a pragmatic commitment to safeguarding enforcement in cross-border disputes, but it also raises critical questions– Was the amount excessive? And, what metrics or thresholds should guide courts in distinguishing necessary protection from disproportionate burdens? For a detailed discussion of this development, check out S. Sri Ganesh Prasad’s post.
The Judgment was delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee.
After five years and no substantive hearings, the Delhi High Court finally ordered the blocking of Sci-Hub and Sci-Net, due to a breach of a voluntary undertaking given in 2020 by Alexandra Elbakyan. Treating the breach as contempt, the Court extended the undertaking to Sci-Net on a theory of “unity of identity” and ordered access blocking. However, not only has this order left many questions unresolved, but the blanket blocking of the sites has raised serious proportionality concerns. It has also revealed many systematic consequences that are likely to follow with respect to access to academic resources, financial strain on public institutions, and the overall sustainability of the Indian research ecosystem. Do check out Swaraj and Yogesh’s incisive and detailed breakdown of the Sci-Hub litigation saga.
This order was delivered by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
- More than 15 Personality Rights order passed in 2025
2025 emerged as a landmark year for personality rights in India, driven by an unprecedented wave of high-profile litigation. Some of the notable plaintiffs in these cases were – Hrithik Roshan, Salman Khan, Karan Johar, Ajay Devgn, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Jaya Bachchan, Jr. NTR, Abhishek Bachchan, Shilpa Shetty, Ranganathan Madhavan, Raj Shamani, Sadhguru, Ankur Warikoo, Pawan Kalyan, Sudhir Chaudhary, Sunil Gavaskar, and Asha Bhosle. The judiciary’s response has been notably interventionist in these cases. Recognising the threat posed to a celebrity’s digital personhood, courts granted swift ex-parte ad-interim injunctions grounded in Article 21’s right to dignity, extending protection to names, likenesses, voices, mannerisms, merchandise, and even posthumous legacy. Orders protecting Asha Bhosle’s voice, restraining deepfake portrayals of Shilpa Shetty (although the Court reserved the question of personality rights in this case for a later day), Ranganathan Madhavan, and Akshay Kumar, reflect this trend. The approach in matters of posthumous personality rights, however, has been contrasting, risking the establishment of hierarchies of protection based on fame and creating inconsistencies in personality rights jurisprudence. Illustratively, in Sir Ratan Tata Trust v. Dr. Rajat Shrivastava, the Delhi High Court protected the late Ratan Tata’s name as a “well-known personal name”, while the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Siddiqua Begum Khan v. Union of India, held that personality rights extinguish upon death.
The Court’s approach to personality rights in general has produced a doctrinal maze. Some issues that now need more examination include: the shift from consumer confusion to mere identifiability, the conflation of moral dignity with economic publicity, a discernible hierarchy of fame, and the marginalisation of defences such as fair use risk chilling satire and creative expression. In 2025, “personality rights” stand fortified, but juridically unsettled. Aside from the blogposts linked in this para already, interested readers are also invited to check out the personality rights episode recently aired on SpicyIP TV’s Let’s IPsa Loquitur.
In a significant ruling championing the concept of the precautionary principle, the Rajasthan High Court held that in the absence of regulations framed under Section 22 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006, dealing in genetically modified (GM) food is impermissible. The Court found that approvals being continually granted, despite a regulatory vacuum, are violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to safe food, and that the same runs counter to the International Conventions India is a signatory to. The Court issued directions to FSSAI and the Union of India to notify regulations under Section 22 of the Act within six months. This judgment provides much-needed relief in safeguarding the constitutional right of citizens to food safety; however, Hari S. Narayanan notes it falls short in holding the government accountable for their prolonged inaction.
This judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjeet Purohit.
- Novenco Building And Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions on October 27 [Supreme Court]
The Supreme Court, while settling the issue of compliance with pre-suit mediation (S. 12A of the Commercial Courts Act) has stirred considerable debate, arguably creating more complications than offering a unified guiding principle. In setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s rejection of Novenco’s patent and design infringement suit for non-compliance with S.12A, the apex court held that in cases of continuing infringement, urgency is inherent and mere delay in filing does not negate the need for urgent interim relief. Restoring the suit, the Court held that recurring infringement must be assessed in light of ongoing injury and public interest in preventing deception. Yogesh Byadwal argues that the Court wrongly imported the rhetoric of consumer confusion (Madras HC also did something similar in a copyright matter), which is discussed in the domain of trademarks, into patent disputes and overlooked the Plaintiff’s prolonged, unexplained delay. And that this has inadvertently placed all IP disputes on the same footing regarding urgency, without clarifying how much delay could be condoned, thereby creating scope for potential misuse of this leeway.
This judgment was delivered by Justice Alok Aradhe.
TheIndian Trademark Registry granted its first smell mark (for a floral fragrance in tyres), recognizing inherent distinctiveness based on graphical representation and source-identifying ability. Relying on the inclusive definition of mark under Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Registry held that scent marks are registrable and refusal would undermine the interests of the aroma industry. However, the decision raises concerns about enforceability and market impact, as smell marks may not reliably function as source identifiers for consumers. While it opens possibilities for non-visual marks, the Registry may have overlooked whether such marks truly guide purchasing decisions or merely create an emotional experience. For a detailed breakdown and a critical view of the entire development, check out Taniskha Goswami’s and Shama Mahajan’s posts on the matter.
The Order was passed by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Prof. (Dr.) Unnat Pandit.
Semaglutide (sold as Ozempic and Wegovy), the anti-diabetes drug widely known for its weight loss effects, was at the centre of a high-stakes patent dispute before the Delhi High Court. On May 29, a single-judge bench of the High Court passed an interim order, restraining Dr. Reddy’s and OneSource Specialty Pharma from selling the drug domestically but allowed exports, subject to their undertaking to pause domestic sales until regulatory approval. Later on December 02, the Court rejected the interim injunction application filed by Novo Nordisk, finding a credible challenge against the validity of the suit patent. But in a controversial move, it still barred the generics manufacturers from selling in India, holding that they failed to “clear the way” by challenging the patent before manufacturing. This approach of linking procedural conduct to market access, despite the vulnerability of the patent, raised several questions on the interpretation of Section 48 and Section 107A adopted by the Court. The matter reached a division bench of the High Court, which has now listed the matter on January 15. Interested readers can check out posts by Yogesh Byadwal (here and here) and Tejaswini Kaushal (here, here, and here) of the Semaglutide litigation.
The May 29 order was delivered by Justice Amit Bansal, and the December 02 order was delivered by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
In a judgment aimed at curbing domain name fraud, the Delhi High Court issued a set of directions, including mandatory e-KYC for domain name registrations, restrictions on automatic privacy masking of registrant details, and directions to banks to strengthen payment verification checks. Although we have not yet been able to review the 250+ page decision in detail, it appears to raise several significant issues. These directions were issued in a batch of suits filed by aggrieved trademark owners alleging the operation of fake websites using their trademarks. While the judgment marks a transition towards more systematic policing of domain-enabled fraud, it also raises concerns about potential over-blocking and an expansion of the scope of intermediary liability.
This judgment was delivered by Justice Prathiba M. Singh.
II. Judgments/Orders by Jurisprudential Rigour and/ or Legal Lucidity)
In a short and crisp order, the Madras High Court clarified that the declaration of a mark as ‘well-known’ operates only prospectively and cannot extinguish the rights of an honest and concurrent prior user who adopted and used a similar trademark in the same or different classes. The lucid order reconciles trademark doctrine with constitutional principles by balancing brand protection against the rights of honest concurrent users and the freedom to carry on business. The dispute concerned the adoption of the mark “Paragon” by the defendant. The respondent argued that they have been using the Paragon mark since 1977, whereas the appellant had opposed their trademark application, citing that their Paragon mark had been recognized as a well-known trademark in 2017. The Court held that while Paragon was declared a well-known mark in 2017, the appellant could not restrict the respondent from registering the marks under a different class. In doing so, the Court recognized that while interpreting a statute providing for the declaration of a well-known mark, the Court must also consider the right of an honest and concurrent user whose fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) (Freedom to practice any profession, occupation or trade) might be affected.
This decision was delivered by Justice N. Seshasayee.
In a carefully reasoned and jurisprudentially nuanced order, the Delhi High Court closely examined the tension between patent protection and public interest in access to life-saving orphan drugs. The decision, passed in a dispute between Roche and Natco over Risdiplam for treating Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), serves as a go-to reference in understanding the rigours of assessment qua anticipation and obviousness in genus-species patents. On anticipation, the judgement is notable for its finding that a compound may be anticipated if it is discernible to a person skilled in the art from a prior genus patent. The Court reached this understanding after carefully assessing the facts and prior rulings. This reasoning significantly narrows the coverage–disclosure divide left open in Novartis v. Union of India. On obviousness, the Court applied the stricter and rarely used “person in the know” (“whether the inventor, while writing the first patent, knew of the invention claimed in the subsequent patent”) test, over the person skilled in the art test, addressing the informational asymmetries inherent in genus–species disputes. In balancing interim relief, the Court foregrounded public interest, noting that Risdiplam is the sole SMA drug in India and prohibitively expensive even if one factors in state support for medical expenses, and consequently held that the balance of convenience favoured Natco. The order was well written, with the Court taking into account all the relevant factors before passing an interim injunction in a pharmaceutical patent dispute.
A Division Bench of the High Court refused to set aside the order, despite holding a different view on the assessment of novelty. Roche also approached the Supreme Court, which likewise refused to interfere in the matter. A detailed discussion of the Division Bench judgment was done by Dr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon (here and here) and by Praharsh and Bharathwaj (here).
The Single Bench judgment was delivered by Justice Mini Pushkarna, and the Division Bench Judgment was delivered by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul.
In an important ruling resolving a long-standing confusion, the Supreme Court addressed the question of when a creative work stops being ‘art’ and becomes an ‘industrial design’ outside the realm of copyright. The dispute concerned the alleged copying of proprietary engineering drawings and literary works. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court clearly explained the overlap between two IPs, taking into account the different orders across high courts and foreign jurisdictions, and the provisions of International Conventions and Agreements (Paris, Berne, and TRIPS). The Court then meticulously created a two-pronged test: first, to determine whether the work was a pure artistic work or a design applied through an industrial process; and second, if it was a design, to assess its functional utility to determine whether it qualified for protection under the Designs Act. In doing so, the Court protected the distinct domains of copyright and design law by drawing a clear line between the two. Further, the Court laid down stricter criteria for design protection by reinforcing that functional utility cannot be the dominant aspect of a design. Overall, the judgement is a must-read for someone interested in understanding more about industrial designs and how they are different from copyright.
This judgment was delivered by Justice Surya Kant.
In a well-reasoned and hard-hitting judgment dealing with the interplay between copyright and classical music, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reversed the Single Bench’s ruling that had held A.R. Rahman’s song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ from Ponniyin Selvan 2 to be prima facie infringing Ustaad Dagar’s copyright in the classical composition titled ‘Shiva Stuti’. The decision offers a compelling exploration of why questions of authorship, copyrightability, and infringement require particular caution in the context of Indian classical music. By declining to infer authorship merely from performance and by firmly placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff, the Court restores much-needed doctrinal discipline to copyright adjudication. The Court also draws a clear and careful distinction between performers’ rights and authors’ rights under the Copyright Act. While acknowledging the inherent difficulty of attributing individual authorship in classical music, the Court consciously resists the urge to relax legal thresholds to overcome that difficulty. This balanced approach prevents the enclosure of shared cultural heritage within private monopolies and protects the public domain from the overreach of copyright claims. For a more detailed discussion on the case, check Kartik Sharma’s post on this important development.
This judgment was passed by Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Justice C. Hari Shankar.
In a detailed and carefully reasoned judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed a deceptively simple yet legally significant question: in a passing-off suit, does international goodwill in a mark suffice, or must such goodwill arise from use within the territory of India? Setting aside the Single Bench’s order, the Division Bench clarified that worldwide goodwill is irrelevant in passing-off actions unless it is accompanied by clear evidence of territorial goodwill in India. Anchoring its reasoning in settled doctrine, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Toyota v. Prius to reiterate that a mark must establish goodwill within India. The Court further refined the law on prior use in passing-off claims, holding that mere priority of use is insufficient unless it translates into accumulated goodwill and reputation in the mark. Interested readers can refer to Shailraj Jhalnia’s post on the development.
This judgment was delivered by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul.
The Delhi High Court delivered an important ruling in a cross-border dispute between parties from Peru and Chile concerning geographical indication rights in the grape brandy Pisco. The Court undertook a careful and structured analysis of homonymous geographical indications, an issue rarely examined by Indian courts, grounding its reasoning in the text and scheme of the GI Act while simultaneously engaging with the parties’ international obligations under FTAs and the TRIPS Agreement. Setting aside the IPAB’s 2018 order granting Peru exclusive GI rights, the Court clarified with doctrinal precision that concepts such as prior adoption, central to trademark law, have no application under the GI Act. The judgment is legally lucid in harmonising domestic statutory interpretation with international commitments and in clearly delineating the contours of the GI Act vis-à-vis the Trade Marks Act, thereby providing authoritative guidance on the treatment of homonymous GIs in Indian law. Interested readers can refer to Tanishka Goswami’s post on the development.
This judgment was delivered by Justice Mini Pushkarna.
In a dispute concerning a biosimilar version of Pertuzumab, a drug used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, the Delhi High Court closely examined the scope of Section 104A of the Patents Act, which concerns the burden of proof in patent infringement suits. The judgement is a rigorous study of Section 104A and its application in biologics- biosimilar disputes. The judgment not only elucidates the purpose and distinctive character of the provision, particularly its departure from conventional evidentiary principles governing process patent disputes, but also undertakes a comparative analysis of precedents from multiple jurisdictions, including Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Herbs Research (Karnataka High Court) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v. Mylan Laboratories Limited (Andhra Pradesh High Court), to arrive at a careful and principled understanding of its scope and operation. Dealing with Roche’s request for disclosure of Zydus’ manufacturing process, the Court clarified that the burden of proof in process patent infringement cases shifts to the defendant only after the patentee shows that the defendant’s product is identical to the product obtained through the patented process. By holding the parties to the statutory preconditions and resisting attempts to rely on broader discovery provisions, the order strikes a careful balance between enabling patent enforcement and protecting a competitor’s confidential commercial information.
This judgment was delivered by Justice Amit Bansal.
Engaging with foundational principles of trademark infringement analysis, the Supreme Court judgment will likely serve as core reading for law students in the years to come. Undertaking a nuanced and fact-sensitive analysis to hold that “London Pride” does not infringe trademark rights in “Blender’s Pride”. The judgment is notable not only for its engagement with precedents on deceptive similarity, the anti-dissection rule, the dominant feature test, the average consumer, and imperfect recollection, but also for the organised and lucid manner in which the Court has authored this 97-page judgment. Another aspect is that the judgment surveys judicial decisions on these issues spanning from 1942 (Coca-Cola Company of Canada Ltd. v. Pepsi-Cola Company of Canada Ltd.) to 2025 (Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v. Dream Pairs Europe Inc and another). The judgment is also notable for its obiter observations on the doctrine of post-sale recently proposed by the UK Supreme Court in the Iconix case.
This judgment was delivered by Justice R Mahadevan and Justice JB Pardiwala.
The Controller’s order from September 12 seemingly puts an end to the long-standing dispute over Entresto (combination of sacubitril and valsartan)- a drug used to treat hypertension and heart failure. The order stands out for its doctrinal clarity and careful engagement with both facts and law, and follows a detailed decision of the Delhi High Court that carefully set aside Novartis’ attempts to halt the proceedings. Revoking the patent on crystalline “supramolecular complex” of sacubitril and valsartan, the order was passed consequent to a post-grant opposition by the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, along with two firms: IPCA (Indian Pharmaceutical Combine Association) Laboratories and MicroLabs. In a detailed order, the Controller carefully examined Novartis’ own prior submissions in earlier litigation, noting its express claim that the earlier patent IN 229051 covered supramolecular complexes, and correctly applied estoppel principles to prevent inconsistent positions before different fora. The Controller then undertook a structured Section 3(d) analysis, first identifying the correct “known substance” and then testing whether Novartis’ evidence showed enhanced therapeutic efficacy over that prior art. The Controller also methodically rejected studies and affidavits that relied on incorrect comparators or demonstrated only improved physicochemical properties.
The order was passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs Dr. D. Usha Rao.
In a well-written judgment addressing the relatively rare issue of letters rogatory (a court in one country to a court in another, asking for assistance in a legal matter), a Division Bench of the Madras High Court carefully interpreted the provisions of India’s international commitments alongside its domestic law on such assistance. Hearing an appeal against a Single Bench’s order enforcing U.S. Letters Rogatory, the Division Bench clarified that Indian courts cannot assist foreign pre-trial discovery that is vague, overly broad, or inconsistent with India’s reservations to some of the provisions of the Hague Evidence Convention. The Court undertook a careful assessment of orders by different high courts on judicial comity and thereafter clarified that the sovereignty of the Country cannot be put to back burner while preserving comity. While holding so, the Court clearly laid out how the provisions of the Hague Convention interact with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and where the latter takes precedence over the commitments in the former. The judgement thus not only serves as an example of the Indian judiciary’s careful balancing of comity with sovereignty, but also provides guidance for courts dealing with requests for letters rogatory in the future. Interested readers can read Tharun Tomy’s post on it here.
The Division Bench Judgment was delivered by Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar.
III. Legislative and Policy-Related Developments
The Indian Patent Office released draft Guidelines for Processing Patent Applications of AYUSH Systems and Related Inventions with an aim to balance the protection of traditional knowledge and innovation. These include six principles that apply to AYUSH products and equipment/devices used in AYUSH systems. Applicants must secure prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) if their invention is based on research or information pertaining to biological resources sourced from India.
On May 9, 2025, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) implemented a new point-based performance evaluation (Office Order 537/2025), which replaced the earlier Order 342/2016. According to the new system, Examiners and Controllers must score 100 points monthly, with points assigned to discrete patent examination tasks including routine examination, expedited applications, and oppositions. This system also incentivises officers by awarding extra points for ensuring the timely completion of tasks, while delays would incur penalties. However, there have been many concerns regarding how this model incentivises Controllers to issue direct grants without hearings and without the requirement of a reasoned order for such grants. Such provisions risk diluting the Controller’s accountability and run counter to public interest. While the new metric system seeks to balance between timely processing and improvement of patent quality, awarding equal points for prima facie rejections in pre-grant oppositions and full-blown examination may enable strategic behaviour aimed at accumulating easy points, which could jeopardise the interests of patentees and the public alike. (Check out Bharathwaj’s two-part post on this development here and here).
In response to a query from Lok Sabha MP Mallu Ravi, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Jitin Prasada, stated that CETA does not require amendments to India’s existing IP Rules or Regulations. Building on commitments first seen in the India-EFTA TEPA, CETA, in effect, reinforces a weakened patent “working” disclosure regime (now once every three years), constrains the practical effectiveness of pre-grant oppositions through timelines and expedited disposal mechanisms, and limits the consequences of non-disclosure of foreign patent applications to cases of wilful suppression – developments that have already been reflected in India’s 2024 Patent Rules amendments. The Agreement further promotes voluntary licensing as the preferred access-to-medicines pathway and introduces patent office cooperation and harmonisation measures that may affect domestic regulatory autonomy. Although framed as a landmark trade deal offering extensive tariff liberalisation and mobility benefits, CETA represents a calibrated but consequential shift in India’s patent governance, with potential long-term implications for access to medicines, compulsory licensing, and India’s negotiating position in future trade agreements. The tremors of these are already being felt across different high-stakes FTA negotiations. Notably, while India is negotiating with the US, suddenly CDSCO has issued a notice hinting towards the introduction of data exclusivity provisions. (more on this below). Another important FTA whose negotiations recently concluded was the one with New Zealand. While the IP provisions are not out yet, it appears New Zealand has agreed to undertake a review of its geographical indications regime, with a view to aligning GI protections with those extended to the EU, including the protection of individual GI names.
The Patent Office released the Guidelines for the Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs) 2025, outlining detailed procedures for examining CRIs in India. Among other things, the guidelines are full of illustrative examples that will surely assist the examiners in dealing with CRI patent applications. Prior to the final version, the Patent Office had released two versions of the guidelines. The First draft sought to reflect recent technological and jurisprudential developments. Bharathwaj, in his post highlighted the terminological ambiguity and limited case references in the first draft (interested readers can also refer to the comments to the CGPDTM, made by Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan, Yogesh Byadwal, Anushka Dhankar, and Swaraj Paul Barooah on this draft). Eventually, the revised draft version of the Guidelines was released; however, as pointed out by Yogesh in this post, the revised guidelines have nothing new to offer on substance apart from being more coherent and the inclusion of new examples. (Interested readers can refer to the comments to the CGPDTM, made by Yogesh Byadwal, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan, and Swaraj Paul Barooah on the second draft.)
In October 2025, a notice issued by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) inviting comments on ensuring a “level playing field” in new drug approvals revived the debate on introducing pharmaceutical data exclusivity in India. This development is notable given India’s consistent rejection of data exclusivity demands in past trade negotiations, including with the UK and EFTA, and comes against the backdrop of ongoing India–US trade talks where TRIPS-plus obligations remain a recurring pressure point. It must be noted that data exclusivity is not mandated under the TRIPS Agreement, and as highlighted by Md Sabeeh in his post, empirical evidence from countries adopting data exclusivity through FTAs shows significant price increases and delayed generic competition.
The proposed amendments to India’s IT Rules by MeitY, particularly concerning synthetically generated information, aim to regulate AI-generated content and deepfakes, but raise significant practical and legal concerns. In an in-depth assessment of the proposed amendments, Akshat points out that Amendment 4 mandates intermediaries to label AI-generated outputs, yet generative AI developers may not legally qualify as intermediaries under the IT Act, creating enforceability issues. He highlights that Amendment 2’s expansive definition of “synthetically generated information” risks sweeping in benign applications, while Amendment 3 creates a tension with safe harbor provisions by encouraging editorial intervention without clear statutory backing. He also points out that Amendment 5 imposes broad verification duties on social media platforms without clarifying what constitutes reasonable technical measures, leaving intermediaries exposed to uncertain liability. Overall, while the regulatory intent is understandable, he argues that the amendments risk being legally ambiguous, operationally unworkable, and could impose disproportionate burdens on developers and platforms without a clear, risk-based framework.
- Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules 2025 on November 3, and Draft Guidelines for the Use of Geographical Indications and Geographical Indications Logo on November 18
In 2025, India saw two major developments in the GI regime. Firstly, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) notified amendments to the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules 2025, following consultations with various stakeholders. The amendment completely replaces the First Schedule with a consolidated fee structure covering applications, oppositions, renewals, etc. A notable aspect of the amendment is the reduction of statutory fees across multiple categories, which is likely to encourage greater participation in the GI regime. Later, the DPIIT also released Draft Guidelines on the use of Geographical Indications (GI) to standardise and strengthen GI usage. However, these Guidelines significantly expand eligibility to use the GI name and logo beyond authorised producers to include intermediaries such as dealers, packagers, exporters, and traders acting with authorised-user consent. As argued by Dr. Anson CJ, this shift may undermine the foundational philosophy of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which is designed to protect the collective reputation, traditional knowledge, and livelihoods of actual producers rooted in a specific geography.
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry published the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which introduced a new adjudicatory framework for penalties and appeals under Sections 120, 122, and 123 of the Patents Act, 1970, consequent to the Jan Vishwas Amendment Act. The 2025 amendments expand the adjudicating officer’s discretion to proceed with inquiries despite the non-appearance of persons capable of providing relevant evidence, subject to recorded reasons. Just like the previously published draft rules, the amended rules continue to omit clarity on the scope of offences and qualification requirements for adjudicating officers and appellate authorities, thereby undermining procedural certainty in the enforcement framework. Interested readers can read Kartik Sharma’s post on the draft rules.
The DPIIT Committee on Generative AI and Copyright has released Part I of its working paper to examine the “intersection of Generative AI and Copyright” on 8 December 2025. In Part I, the Committee had limited itself to the copyright concerns that arise from the legality of training GenAI models with large corpora of copyrighted works. However, it does not respond to this and instead takes an ambitious position on infringement and fair dealing, proposing reforms such as a statutory licensing regime, and presuming infringement proposes establishing a centralised body to collect and distribute royalties. The report raises some important questions about how copyright law itself treats machine and human reading distinctly, with human reading subject to shackles, while machine reading is privileged and allowed. Swaraj, in a longer piece, has critiqued the report on four grounds, namely: Lack of theoretical rigour, misplaced diagnosis that the technologies powering GenAI would be static, shrinking of the public sphere/public juris due to increase in paywalls and TPMs, and finally, an impractical scheme whose working, at best, will act as a funnel to extract value from the bottom and transfer it to a select few.
- Amendment to Section 4 of the Patent Act consequent to the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancementof Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, on December 20 (See page 44)
The SHANTI Act, replacing the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010, allows for private sector participation in building and operating nuclear power plants in India. To rope in participation from private players, the Act amends the Indian Patent Act via its Section 38, which allows for patents over peaceful uses of nuclear energy and radiation. Previously, Section 4 restricted patents on an invention relating to atomic energy. However, with the SHANTI Act, a person can file an application seeking a patent on an invention for peaceful use of nuclear energy and radiation as long as they do not fall under the ambit of Section 3(5) or are not deemed sensitive or national security related by the Central Government. Interested readers can refer to Kartik Sharma’s post from earlier today on this development.
IV. Other Developments
- Developments concerning the Jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India on Anti-competitive Patent Complaints
The tug of war between the Competition Commission of India and the Controller of Patents to decide on anti-competitive complaints arising from patent matters came to an anti-climactic end when the Supreme Court declined to decide on the point of law. The issue stems from the Delhi High Court’s decision extinguishing the jurisdiction of the CCI from any anticompetitive complaints and interpreting that the Patent Act allows the Controller General to hear anti-competitive complaints against patentees. The Supreme Court order was passed consequent to the settlement between the Patent Holder (Ericsson) and implementers/ complainants. While the Supreme Court’s order is not a binding authority and the issue is still out in the open to be decided, in October 2025, in Swapan Dey v CCI, the NCLAT too ousted the jurisdiction of CCI in similar disputes, relying on the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court order. Interested readers can read Ambika Aggarwal and Vasundra Koul’s posts on the two developments here and here, respectively.
The Commerce and Industry Minister, Piyush Goyal, announced that the CGPDTM will fund Indian law students selected to participate in any international IP moot court competition. The announcement was made at the inauguration of Vidhi Pragati: National IP Moot Court Competition 2025 at National Law University, Delhi. Pursuant to this announcement, the Ministry of Commerce also released detailed funding guidelines for International IP Moot Court Competitions.
The Delhi High Court in Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v. Granules India Limited recorded a settlement in a patent dispute concerning Ruxolitinib, a drug used to treat specific blood cancers and bone marrow disorders. In its affidavit recording the settlement, Granules asserted that it has neither launched nor intends to launch any product containing Ruxolitinib in India during the term of the suit patent, and that all its activities fall within the safe harbour under Section 107A of the Patents Act. It also clarified that any regulatory-related activities, and an inadvertent online listing, were solely for licensing and approvals and not for commercial exploitation. Though this was eventually settled, this case once again underscored the ambiguity and breadth of Section 107A, especially around commercialisation signals, timing of use, stockpiling, etc. Tejaswini Kaushal discusses the scope of Section 107A in her blog here.
Bringing an end to five years of litigation before the Delhi High Court, Philips and Vivo settled their disputes concerning 3G and 4G. While the terms of the settlement agreement are confidential, as per the order, they involved the return of the phones, the destruction of confidential records, and the lifting of restrictions on Vivo’s property.
- The ANI v. OpenAI Copyright Litigation
Although the case was filed last year, OpenAI v. ANI was in the news this year as well. In November 2024, ANI sought an interim injunction against OpenAI over its alleged unauthorised use and storage of ANI’s copyright work to train its large language models. This year, a flurry of entities ranging from the Digital News Publishers Association to numerous music labels filed intervention applications to join this litigation. The Digital News Publishers Association claimed that generative AI reduces news publishers’ traffic and revenue, but the case highlights legal uncertainty over whether AI training and summarisation constitute infringement. This uncertainty suggests publishers may need to prioritise adaptation strategies like licensing, new revenue models, and direct audience engagement over litigation. (Interested readers can check Subhalaxmi’s post on this development.) On the other hand, the different Music labels and trade bodies like T-series, Saregama, Sony Music, and the Indian Music Industry (IMI), argued that OpenAI unlawfully used copyrighted sound recordings and musical works to train its AI models without authorisation. Their intervention expanded the dispute beyond news content to also music copyright, which raises many unresolved questions on AI training, fair use under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1950, jurisdiction, etc. Interested readers can refer to posts on this litigation by Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan (here), Akshat Agrawal (here), and Shama Mahajan (here and here).
- Delhi High Court Upholds FSSAI’s ban on Using the Term “ORS” for Beverages that do not meet WHO Regulatory Standards
The Delhi High Court upheld FSSAI’s ban on labeling beverages as “ORS” unless they meet WHO standards, resolving confusion over fruit-flavoured electrolyte drinks misleadingly marketed as oral rehydration solutions. The Court emphasized deference to FSSAI’s regulatory authority, noting public health concerns outweigh commercial or trademark interests. This decision intersects trademark law and consumer protection: Section 9(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act bars marks likely to deceive, and ORS, as an International Non-Proprietary Name, cannot be monopolized under Section 13(b). The ruling underscores that trademark rights cannot justify the use of misleading marks, reaffirming the primacy of public health over commercial branding in such contexts. Read Vikram’s post on this development.
- SWA and MCAI Sign MoU to Collaborate on Standardising Screenwriters’ Agreements
The Screen Writers Association (SWA) and the Music Composer Association of India (MCAI) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), alongside efforts towards a standardised agreement for screenwriters, to strengthen recognition, bargaining power, and remuneration for lyricists, composers, and writers. The proposed screenwriter agreement aims to address unfair pay and missing credits by ensuring minimum fee structures and providing them with due credit. While these efforts aim to bridge longstanding inequities in India’s film and music industries, their real impact depends on whether producers ultimately accept them, as there are currently no legal remedies if they do not. Read Suhani and Praharsh’s take on this.
Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan National, All India Radio began offering free or low-cost, copyright-cleared content, ranging from archival visuals and news clips to audio and documentaries, for creators, through a feed service PBSHABD. This stood in sharp contrast to agencies providing syndicated multimedia news feeds, such as ANI, which drew criticism for pursuing independent news outlets and YouTube channels through copyright strikes. Read Tanishka Goswami and Md Thahir Sulaiman’s posts on the latter here and here.
- Prada’s Spring/Summer 2026 Collection Drew Backlash for Sandals Inspired by India’s GI-tagged Kolhapuri Chappals
The Prada Spring/Summer 2026 collection sparked controversy in India for allegedly appropriating the GI-tagged Kolhapuri chappals, drawing attention to issues of fashion plagiarism. This move followed a significant social media backlash alleging cultural appropriation and potential infringement of the Kolhapuri Chappal GI. However, under India’s GI Act, Prada’s conduct would not constitute GI infringement as it did not use the protected GI name or mislead consumers regarding origin, and the same didn’t amount to passing off. Further, even if proprietors sued, jurisdictional bars wouldn’t arise under Section 66 of the GI Act. Read Tanishka Goswami and Shikhar Aggarwal’s post on this development. To know more about the hurdles faced by the artisan community vis-a-vis GI registration and enforcement, interested readers can also checkout the the discussion between Sonisha Srinivasan and Niharika Salar on SpicyIP TV.
- Manpower Extension in the Indian Patent Office (see page 15)
After a process marred by administrative and legal challenges, the Patent Office has recruited 407 new Examiners. Long-standing manpower shortages have adversely affected the office’s functioning, and this recruitment is expected to help reduce delays in the examination of patent applications. The Indian IP Office is also addressing staffing gaps in the Trade Marks Registry, where 200 additional posts have been sanctioned, including 120 Examiner and Senior Examiner positions.
V. Other Notable Developments 2025
- The Calcutta High Court in Gunjan Sinha @Kanishk Sinha v Union of India upheld the constitutionality of Sections 11A(7) and 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, which fix a patent’s term at 20 years from the date of filing the application. (See Hruthika’s post on this development)
- The Indian Patent Office revoked Optimus’ Patent No. 281489 relating to a manufacturing process for the antibiotic Linezolid following a post-grant opposition by Symed Labs. The patent was cancelled for lacking inventive step, failure to meet Section 3(d) standards. Read Md Sabeeh’s post on this order.
- A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. The Controller of Patents prima facie opined that a revocation petition against a patent whose statutory term has expired is not maintainable, but kept the matter reserved for hearing. The Court expressed this view in an appeal concerning a patent dispute over the anti-diabetes drug Linagliptin and also appointed Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar as amicus to assist on the issue. Read Bharathwaj’s post on this development.
- The Letters Patent Appeals in IP matters were in the news this year with Calcutta and Delhi High Court taking contrary views on the issue in trademark matters. The Calcutta High Court in Glorius Investment v. Dunlop Internationalheld that an LPA does not lie against a Single Bench’s decision under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, reasoning that the Registrar’s powers give it the trappings of a civil court and therefore attract the bar on DB to hear the matter again in an appeal, under Section 100A CPC. In contrast, the Delhi High Court in Promoshirt SM SA v Armassuisse distinguished between a “court” and a “civil court” and permitting LPAs by confining Section 100A CPC to the latter. Adding to the flux, the Madras High Court subsequently disallowed similar intra court appeals in Patent disputes.
- The Delhi High Court granted what it termed a superlative injunction, extending beyond earlier dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions. Passed right before the summer court vacations in Star v. IPTV, the Court empowered Star to secure real-time blocking of newly discovered rogue websites and mobile applications streaming its copyrighted sports content illegally, without repeatedly approaching the Court during court vacations. Read Arnav Kaman’s post on this development.
- An ad-hoc committee constituted pursuant to the Delhi High Court’s directions in Saurav Chaudhary v. Union of India recommended deregistration of a patent agent for failing to inform a client about the issuance of a FER, leading to abandonment of the patent application. Md. Sabeeh Ahmand wrote on this development.
- Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court was appointed as the Chair of the 10-member Advisory Board of Judges (‘ABJ’) of the World Intellectual Property Organization(‘WIPO’). Justice Singh’s tenure is supposed to last for two years (2025-27) where she will be serving in her personal capacity and not as a representative of India.
- PV Krishnan Nair was discharged after 38 years from copyright infringement proceedings filed by the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) for unauthorized reproduction and circulation of foreign films. The Mumbai Trial Court found no evidence to frame charges after decades of investigation, citing failed witness summons and lack of records. The Court also ordered that any seized property be destroyed.
- The Kenyan Court of Appeal in Kenya Agricultural and Processed Food Products Development Authority (APEDA) v Krish Commodities Limited dismissed APEDA’s challenge to the registration of trademarks containing the word ‘Basmati’. The Court held that while the word ‘Basmati’ may be qualified to be a GI under the TRIPS agreement, the same had not been formally recognised or registered as a GI in Kenya. In the absence of a sui-generis GI regime in Kenya, the Court held that the GI had to be sought under the Kenyan Trade Marks Act, and since the mark had not been registered under this framework, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. Read Vikram Raj Nanda’s post on the case.
- The Ministry of Tribal Affairs announced the Bhagwan Birsa Munda Prize for Development of Drug for Sickle Cell Disease, in collaboration with AIIMS Delhi, undertaking a competition for drug development for Sickle Cell Disease. The prizes will be from INR 1 crore to 10, and the selected proposal would be funded up to INR 10 crores for further drug development. Read Arnav’s post on this and the prize model of incentivising innovation.
- The Madras High Court stayed the Enforcement Directorate’s decision to provisionally attach director Shankar’s assets worth of INR 10.11 Crores under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The matter arises from the long-running dispute where author Tamilnandan alleged that Shankar’s film “Enthiran” plagiarised his literary work “Jugiba”. Read Anjali and Praharsh’s post on the development.
- The Ministry of Commerce officially notified the relocation of the CGPDTM headquarters, along with its Establishment and Finance Divisions, from Mumbai to New Delhi.
- The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision in favour of JNU scholars Dr. Shiv Shankar Das and Dr. Kshipra Uke, holding that the theft of their laptops, research data, and decades of scholarly work constituted a loss of “intellectual property” protectable as ‘property’ under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Read post by Yogesh Byadwal on this development.
- Relying on an old Supreme Court precedent and an unwillingness to retrospectively apply the 2012 amendments, the Delhi High Court in Saregama India Limited vs Vels Film International Limited & Ors. held that famed composer Ilaiyaraaja does not hold copyright in the song En Iniya Pon Nilave. Check out Taniskha Goswami’s coverage of this development.
- The Delhi High Court delivered two notable judgments concerning DVD and VCD SEPs, both involving Koninklijke Philips as the plaintiff. These judgments were delivered after conducting the complete trial, which went on for 13 years (Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V v. Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl) and 21 years (Koninklijke Philips N.V v. M. Bathla). Both these cases have been covered by Praharsh and Ambika Aggarwal here and here.
- The Delhi High Court in Al Hamd Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Limited held that quoting unreasonable licensing terms can amount to a refusal to license, thereby attracting the compulsory licensing under Section 31(1)(a) of the Copyright Act. Finding the flat fee of ₹49,500 demanded for the event to be unreasonable, the Court ruled that the petitioner’s request for a compulsory licence on fair and reasonable terms was maintainable and warranted consideration. Check out Lokesh’s post on this development.
- Bombay High Court refused to recognize the popular short-form video-sharing platform TikTok as a well known trademark, on national security grounds. Interested readers can check Taniksha’s post on this development.
- The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/S Crocs Inc Usa v. M/S Bata India & Ors held that a passing off action is not barred merely because the subject matter is a registered design. Interpreting Carlsberg v. Som Distilleries, the Bench clarified that a plaintiff need not plead elements beyond the registered design where the defendant uses the design as part of its overall trade dress, and not merely as a design. Interested readers can check out Priyam Mitra and Shailraj Jhalnia’s discussion of this development here and here.
- Rajasthan High Court in Nirmala Kabra v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr held that the right to speedy and expeditious disposal of trademark applications forms part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Check out Kartik Sharma’s post on this development.
- The Delhi High Court in E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited restrained Zydus from manufacturing, selling or dealing with its proposed biosimilar of Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody drug that is used to treat cancer. Check out this post by Yogesh Byadwal on this development.
- The Delhi High Court in FMC Corporation & Ors v. Natco Pharma Limited declined to grant an interim injunction, holding that Natco had raised a credible challenge to the validity of FMC’s patent, warranting a full examination at trial. In doing so, the Court proceeded on the assumption that a prior-disclosed species could anticipate a claimed genus, without undertaking a detailed analysis of disclosure or enablement at the interim stage. Accordingly, the Court treated the validity challenge as sufficient to deny interim relief, effectively deferring a substantive assessment of novelty and anticipation to the trial. Check out Yogesh Byadwal’s post on this development.
- Refusing to grant an interim injunction. the Delhi High Court in Cigma Events Private Limited v. Mr. Deepak Gupta & Ors. emphasised that client lists and business knowledge are not automatically ‘trade secrets’ unless demonstrated to have specific commercial value. Read Bharathwaj’s post on this development.
- The Delhi High Court in Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd v. Shri Gopal Engineering held that a trademark infringement suit cannot be brought before a Court on the ground of mere online presence, accessibility of a passive website, or listings on third-party platforms accessible in a particular location. Applying the decision laid down in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., the Court held that to prove commercial activity or targeting in the forum state, sufficient evidence like bills/ invoices was required to be produced. Read Srishti Gaur’s post on this case here.
- New guidelines to cover Article Processing Charges (APCs) for high-quality open-access journals were introduced under the One Nation One Subscription scheme, aiming to make publishing more accessible for researchers. Interested readers can refer to Hafsah’s post on these guidelines.
- The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has released a draft notification proposing amendments to the Copyright Rules, 2013. The proposed amendment seeks to streamline and digitise the process of paying licence fees for copyrighted works communicated to the public, mandating that such payments be made exclusively through an online medium.
- The Central Consumer Protection Authority issued an advisory directing e-commerce platforms to identify and eliminate “dark patterns” from their digital interfaces through mandatory self-audits. Read Anureet’s post on these advisory.
- In three separate appellate decisions- Natera, Sequenom, and Emd Millipore, the Delhi High Court clarified how Section 3(i) of the Patent Act is to be interpreted and applied. It held that methods of diagnosis are not patentable, while diagnostic tools, products, and devices remain eligible for patent protection. In arriving at this position, the Court drew heavily on European jurisprudence but did not meaningfully engage with the Madras High Court’s decision in Chinese University of Hong Kong v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, the other key Indian ruling on diagnostic methods under Section 3(i). Readers can refer to Kartik Sharma’s post on the cases.
- In Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, under which the Intellectual Property Appellate Board had been abolished in 2021. Following the Board’s abolition, several High Courts across the country established specialised IP Divisions. The implications, if any, of the Supreme Court’s latest judgment on the functioning of these IP Divisions remain to be seen.
- In Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Controller of Patents, the Madras High Court acknowledged and sought to address the confusion surrounding Section 3(k). It noted, first, the inconsistent application of multiple tests by courts under Section 3(k), and second, the lack of a clear distinction between these tests and the “technical advance” requirement under Section 2(1)(ja). However, as pointed out by Bharathwaj, the Court’s attempt to define what constitutes “technical” is largely vacuous, and both the Court and the Controller appear to have overlooked the possibility that the invention may also be barred under Section 3(n) of the Patents Act.
