Author name: Aparajita Lath

Aparajita is an Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India, Bangalore. She graduated from the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata and Harvard Law School (LL.M). She has worked at AZB & Partners and Trilegal. She was also a Student Fellow at the Petrie-Flom Centre at Harvard Law School.

AI Art and Indian Copyright Registration

/ By / Copyright

AI generated art is in full swing and the Indian Copyright Office is confused. AI generated art is created autonomously by artificial intelligence without creative contribution from humans (see below the image Dall-E 2 created with my prompt “a machine painting a canvas”). Such works qualify as ‘computer generated works’ under the Indian Copyright Act. Computer-generated works were included as a category of works in 1995, presumably at a time when AI was not making art. For such works, copyright […]

AI Art and Indian Copyright Registration Read More »

Solving the Conundrum of ‘Communication to Public’ AKA ‘Making Available’ Right: Lessons from Canada

/ By / Copyright

We are pleased to bring you a guest post by Dr. Sunanda Bharti discussing the Canadian decision in Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada v. Entertainment Software Association on ‘making available’ rights and its application to India. Sunanda is a Professor in Law at Delhi University and has written several guest posts for us, which can be viewed here. Solving the conundrum of ‘Communication to Public’ AKA ‘Making Available’ Right: Lessons from Canada Sunanda Bharti The Federal Court

Solving the Conundrum of ‘Communication to Public’ AKA ‘Making Available’ Right: Lessons from Canada Read More »

AI/ML Medical Devices, Regulation and Sunrise in the West

/ By / Drug Regulation, Innovation, Others

Policy makers have often been caught off guard with new age technology. Technology emerges and evolves rapidly and regulations are slow to catch up. This cat and mouse game continues with another fast emerging and disruptive technology – AI / ML based medical devices. The US and EU are seeing waves of regulatory and policy level curiosity in AL / ML medical devices. The timing for these interventions also seems right. While many devices have been launched, this technology is

AI/ML Medical Devices, Regulation and Sunrise in the West Read More »

mRNA Patent Litigation: The ‘Sport of Kings’

/ By / Patent

Battle lines are being drawn in the fight over the lucrative mRNA vaccine technology used in certain Covid 19 vaccines. Moderna recently sued Pfizer alleging patent infringement of three out of eight patents that cover its Covid 19 vaccine (Spikevax). Moderna has supplied over 299 million doses of its Covid 19 vaccine to the United States and has, reportedly, lined up supply deals worth USD 35 billion through the end of 2022. Pfizer and BioNTech have supplied over 472 million

mRNA Patent Litigation: The ‘Sport of Kings’ Read More »

Bye, bye quia timet patent injunctions?

/ By / Patent

‘Quia timet’? Makes no sense to you? Makes no sense to me either, especially after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Patil Automation v. Rakheja Engineers. The Supreme Court recently held that mediation prior to institution of a suit is mandatory unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. If the plaintiff does not follow the mediation process, its plaint can be rejected. This mediation requirement was introduced in 2018 through an amendment to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The amendment introduced

Bye, bye quia timet patent injunctions? Read More »

Competition law flexibilities for pharma patents? Vifor v CCI

/ By / Competition Law, Patent

Story so far: Recently, the Delhi High Court was tasked with examining an interesting competition and IP case. An informant (requesting confidentiality) filed a competition law complaint against Vifor International AG (Vifor) before the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Unfortunately, the facts of the complaint are not clear from the Delhi High Court decision since the complaint was filed seeking confidentiality.   Some facts can be gleaned from the arguments of both sides. It appears that Vifor holds patents for

Competition law flexibilities for pharma patents? Vifor v CCI Read More »

WIPO members approve two diplomatic conferences on designs and genetic resources/TK protection

/ By / Others, Patent

The WIPO General Assembly, on July 21, 2022, approved to move to diplomatic conferences for two proposed international agreements –  one, covering protection of designs and the other, on intellectual property (IP), genetic resources and traditional knowledge (TK) associated with genetic resources. Diplomatic conferences are negotiating rounds which can result in the adoption of multilateral treaties. WIPO members have approved convening of diplomatic conferences for the two proposed treaties no later than 2024. Proposed Design Law Treaty The proposed Design

WIPO members approve two diplomatic conferences on designs and genetic resources/TK protection Read More »

No change, no gain: Reflecting on post-grant opposition timelines

/ By / Patent

Last week we blogged about two post-grant oppositions against Novo Nordisk’s patent that have been pending for eight years. While the Delhi High Court (single judge) directed the Controller to finally hear and decide the matter by September 30, 2022, Sandeep Rathod in his comment here, pointed out that the patentee appealed the Single Judge decision before a Division Bench. It appears that this appeal was then withdrawn by the patentee midway while arguing! Sandeep has also written about post-grant

No change, no gain: Reflecting on post-grant opposition timelines Read More »

Questionable practices leading to delays in post-grant oppositions: Novo Nordisk v UOI

/ By / Patent

A recent decision of the Delhi High Court, in Novo Nordisk AS v. Union of India (July 5, 2022), brings back to light the problem of delays in post-grant oppositions in India. Prashant’s post here, discusses broader policy problems with respect to delayed oppositions. As noted, a very small per centage of patents are actually commercialised and  an opposition usually signifies that the patent at issue has underlying economic value (compared to uncontested applications). So keeping an opposition pending for

Questionable practices leading to delays in post-grant oppositions: Novo Nordisk v UOI Read More »

Sale of existing stock in trademark disputes: Interim confusion?

/ By / Trademark

In a recent pharma trademark infringement and passing off dispute, the Delhi High Court permitted the defendant to sell its existing stock (pending further orders) without vacating the interim injunction against the defendant. The Delhi High Court characterised this arrangement as an ‘interim arrangement’ required to serve public interest. Facts Respondent / plaintiff (M/S Laborate Pharma) had filed a suit against the appellant / defendant (Alkem Labs) alleging trademark and copyright infringement and passing off with respect to its registered

Sale of existing stock in trademark disputes: Interim confusion? Read More »

Scroll to Top