Author name: Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan

Bharathwaj is an IP lawyer with a keen interest in reading and writing about Intellectual Property Law. You can reach out to me at bharathwajramakrishnan [at] gmail.com

When Orders don’t Speak: Analysing Tapas Chatterjee vs Controller 

/ By / Patent

Image from here The recent judgment of the Division Bench in Tapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Tapas) had caught the headlines for taking the Indian Patent Office (IPO) to task for issuing an unreasoned order or in the words of the Court a ‘laconic’ order (‘Laconic’ means –using or involving the use of a minimum of words: concise to the point of seeming rude or mysterious).  The word itself has an interesting etymology tracing its origins […]

When Orders don’t Speak: Analysing Tapas Chatterjee vs Controller  Read More »

Why we should stop using the word ‘technical’ 

/ By / Patent

Thanks to Swaraj and Yogesh, conversations with whom on this very ‘technical’ topic served as an inspiration for this piece. I know that the title sounds radical, but hear me out. There has been a flurry of cases in recent times discussing the scope of Section 3(k). All of these cases have, at various instances, come up with different tests/formulations that have one thing in common: the word ‘technical’ appended to the front. This form of technicalism, or the utilisation

Why we should stop using the word ‘technical’  Read More »

Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud! – Analysing  Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Controller of Patents

/ By / Patent

Slightly long post…… The Madras High Court (MHC) has called a spade a spade. In Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Controller of Patents, MHC recognised and attempted to clarify the confusion surrounding Section 3(k). At various instances, we have highlighted that Section 3(k) jurisprudence has been plagued by terminological confusion, leading to fragmentation of jurisprudence and thus producing a cacophony of tests. It is admirable that MHC, for the first time, recognised the confusion surrounding Section 3(k) and some of

Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud! – Analysing  Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Controller of Patents Read More »

Can You Revoke an Expired Patent? Delhi High Court to Answer Soon

/ By / Others, Patent

The Division Bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court (DHC) has issued an order, observing prima facie, that a revocation petition against a patent whose statutory term has expired is not maintainable. DB has also appointed Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar as amicus to assist the Court on this issue. This prima facie observation contradicts the position of the  Single Bench of DHC in Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. The Controller of Patents (previously covered here), which had concluded that a revocation

Can You Revoke an Expired Patent? Delhi High Court to Answer Soon Read More »

Delhi High Court Risdiplam DB Judgement: A Few More Thoughts

/ By / Innovation, Others, Patent

Image from here [The post is co-authored with Praharsh Gour with research assistance from Vikram Nanda.] The Delhi High Court’s recent Risdiplam DB judgement refused to interfere with the Single Judge’s order rejecting Roche’s interim injunction application against Natco. It was alleged by the Swiss Pharma manufacturer that Natco infringed its Risdiplam patent- IN 334397 (Suit Patent). The decision, passed by a bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, will enable access to affordable orphan drugs for

Delhi High Court Risdiplam DB Judgement: A Few More Thoughts Read More »

GUI and IP: Here, There and Everywhere!

/ By / Copyright, Design, Others, Overlaps in IP, Patent

Image from here The Calcutta High Court (CalHC) seems poised to resolve the issue of registrability of GUI under the Designs Act (Act) once and for all. In a recent order in Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH v. Controller of Patents (Erbe, IPDAID/22/2024), CalHC has appointed Adv. Adarsh Ramanujan as amicus curiae to assist the Court on a matter, which seems to involve questions on the registrability of GUI under the Designs Act (See Adarsh’s post). This comes at a time when

GUI and IP: Here, There and Everywhere! Read More »

Copyright Ma(r)ximalism! 

/ By / Copyright, Others

This post is prompted by a new very provocative and ‘spicy’ article written by Benjamin Sobel for the Chicago-Kent Law Review titled “Copyright Accelerationism” (a brief summary). This paper, if I could summarise in a line or two (to the extent of being very reductionist), states that Copyright maximalism is not that bad. That it should be applied across the board to all, machines and humans equally, without fear or favour nor ill will. That if applied to its full

Copyright Ma(r)ximalism!  Read More »

Sci-Hub now Completely Blocked in India!

/ By / Copyright

Image from here, screenshot taken before the website was taken down via Court order As readers of this blog know, the story of Sci-Hub, Libgen and other shadow libraries is a never-ending tale that has now reached a possible injunctive end. In an order dated 19/08/2025 written by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, issued the following directions: 26.1 The defendant no. 12 [i.e., DoT] and the defendant no. 13 [i.e., MeitY] are directed to issue a notification calling upon the

Sci-Hub now Completely Blocked in India! Read More »

Imminent Infringement: How far can you go? 

/ By / Patent

Be warned, Long post ahead! The Court of Appeal (COA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Boehringer Ingelheim v. Zentiva (Boehringer Ingelheim) on 13th August 2025, issued an order addressing the pretty knotty question of when a preliminary injunction should be granted when an applicant (in this case, Boehringer) claims that infringement has not yet taken place but is imminent. This is somewhat similar to a Quia timet action under Indian law, where an interim injunction is sought because

Imminent Infringement: How far can you go?  Read More »

What do you intend?  Section 3(b) and the “intent” principle 

/ By / Others, Patent

Brace Yourself, Long Post ahead!! The Calcutta High Court (“CalHC”), in a set of two judgments, had the opportunity to discuss the scope of Section 3(b). I had previously discussed one of these judgments in detail. In  ITC vs Controller (ITC-I), the CalHC had observed that whether an invention is hit by Section 3(b) is to be judged by the “intent” principle and not the harm principle [para 37]. In another subsequent judgement involving ITC again (ITC vs Controller or

What do you intend?  Section 3(b) and the “intent” principle  Read More »

Scroll to Top