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

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 »

[Part II] – New Performance metrics might be in place in the IPO!

/ By / Patent

In the previous post, we had discussed the new OO 537/2025 that is allegedly in place to measure the performance of patent officials. I discussed the metrics in detail in the context of how it incentivises issuing reasoned orders in some instances, while not in other instances. In this post, I will discuss the need for a reasonableness checklist, how the metrics apply to PGO and finally what it means for patent quality. Moving towards a reasonableness checklist:  Questions need

[Part II] – New Performance metrics might be in place in the IPO! Read More »

[Part I] – New Performance metrics might be in place in the IPO!

/ By / Patent

While I was railing against the Indian Patent Office’s (IPO) Order 34/2016 in a previous post, the IPO might have silently put in place a more comprehensive point-based system to measure the performance of both Examiners and Controllers. This new Office Order (Office Order 537/2025 or OO 537/2025) overrides Order 34/2016 and takes effect from 09/05/2025. Unfortunately, this information was not made public, and I was railing at an order which might have been overruled and is not in effect.

[Part I] – New Performance metrics might be in place in the IPO! Read More »

Patent Quality and Performance Metrics: More is not better! (Part II)

/ By / Others, Patent

Continuing my discussion from the first part of this post, in this post, I will examine the performance metrics put in place by IPO and try to calculate the number of hours available for an Examiner and the Controller to complete a task and how even with generous assumptions, it is clear that the current quota system is too unreasonable and burdensome. Finally, I will discuss what this means for the Patent Office and the Indian IP landscape.  Too little

Patent Quality and Performance Metrics: More is not better! (Part II) Read More »

Patent Quality and Performance Metrics: More is not better! (Part I)

/ By / Others, Patent

The word ‘patent quality’, when heard for the first time, sounds a bit mysterious and esoteric. A close friend of mine, when I told her my next post is on patent quality, she was a bit lost and asked me, “What does patent quality mean?” Yet, patent quality has been a hotly debated topic and also a concern raised both in India and abroad. Previous bloggers have raised questions on the quality of patents granted by the Indian Patent Office

Patent Quality and Performance Metrics: More is not better! (Part I) Read More »

ITC vs Controller of Patents: A missed opportunity in clarifying Section 3(b)

/ By / Others, Patent

Long Post Ahead! The Indian Patent Office has its own jurisprudence regarding nicotine/tobacco-related inventions. Bloggers have earlier noted instances wherein the patent office has rejected nicotine/tobacco-related patent applications as violating Section 3(b) (see here, here and here).  While we all were eagerly waiting for the Delhi HC to give its judgement on one such instance, the Calcutta High Court in ITC vs Controller had set aside an order from the Patent Office which had ostensibly refused grant for a nicotine/tobacco-related

ITC vs Controller of Patents: A missed opportunity in clarifying Section 3(b) Read More »

Taking a closer look at the Draft CRI Guidelines 2025 

/ By / Patent

Long post ahead! Last week, we ran a post informing our readers about the Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), 2025 (hereinafter draft guidelines), which was made open for public consultations. Our readers would know that the last CRI guidelines were issued in 2017. On a prima facie reading of the draft guidelines, one can notice some interesting changes, as the new draft includes a discussion relating to recent jurisprudence and examples of patentable claims. This post seeks

Taking a closer look at the Draft CRI Guidelines 2025  Read More »

Some Hits and Some Misses: Analysing Kemin Industries vs Controller of Patents

/ By / Others, Patent

Image from here Imagine that your client has come up with an invention (a process) that enables animals on your farm to absorb more energy than is usual from their feed/diet. It coincidently might also increase the economic value of the animals, mostly poultry and swine, after consuming the enhanced feed. Would this be a method of treatment for animals that is barred by Section 3(i)?  Madras High Court delivered a judgement answering this specific question and more. The Court

Some Hits and Some Misses: Analysing Kemin Industries vs Controller of Patents Read More »

Scroll to Top