Author name: J. Sai Deepak

Bilski: Pandora’s Box or Panacea?- I

/ By / Uncategorized

In the last post, we had reported in brief on the much-awaited decision of the US Supreme court in Bilski v. Kappos (with a few inaccuracies on my part). Just so that we don’t lose out on such an important development and of course, a delicious rousing heated debate, I thought it best to open the decision for discussion/debate with a few preliminary thoughts (because the judgment merits more than a single reading, particularly Justice Stevens’ brilliant opinion, which at […]

Bilski: Pandora’s Box or Panacea?- I Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: US Supreme Court Affirms Invalidity of Bilski Patent

/ By / Uncategorized

In what is definitely one of the most anticipated IP decisions in recent times, the US Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the decision of the Court of the Federal Circuit invalidating the Bilski patent which was on a method for commodities hedging. Although this is not an Indian decision, it certainly is of relevance to Indian practitioners and patent applicants. Based on a strictly cursory skimming of the decision, the Court seems to have upheld the invalidity on grounds that the

SpicyIP Tidbit: US Supreme Court Affirms Invalidity of Bilski Patent Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Formula One, Chess and IP

/ By / Uncategorized

This probably comes a tad bit too late because the mainstream media has already reported it. Force India, the Formula One racing team owned by the chairman of United Breweries Group, Mr. Vijay Mallya, has initiated legal proceedings in the UK against a rival F1 team, Lotus Racing (also known as 1Malaysia F1 Team) for infringement of its intellectual property rights in the VJM03 wind tunnel model (A wind tunnel facility is used to determine, among other things, the distribution

SpicyIP Tidbit: Formula One, Chess and IP Read More »

“Person Interested”: How is an Inclusive Definition to be interpreted?

/ By / Patent

In an earlier post, Kruttika initiated a thought-provoking discussion on certain lesser discussed aspects of Justice Murlidhar’s decision on appealability of pre-grant decisions. In the comments, the discussion ultimately veered towards the distinction between “any person” under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act and “a person interested” under Section 25(2) with the former referring to pre-grant opposition and the latter, post-grant.  The questions raised as part of the comments were: 1.      1. Is “any person” under s.25(1) the same as

“Person Interested”: How is an Inclusive Definition to be interpreted? Read More »

Anticipation Under Section 31(d)

/ By / Patent

A few days ago, I was surprised when I was told that our Patents Act provides the same kind of grace period that the US Patents Act provides to its inventors/patent applicants. Section 102 of the US Act provides for a one year grace period under which, even if the invention disclosed in a patent specification is published not earlier than a year before the filing of the patent, it does not anticipate the application. It must be pointed out

Anticipation Under Section 31(d) Read More »

ACTA: A New Culture of Damages…

/ By / Uncategorized

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been discussed at length on SpicyIP, notably by Swaraj and Amlan. In particular, recent posts by Amlan on the official text of ACTA make for very matured reading. ACTA has obviously generated a lot of interest, with its politico-economic implications forming the focal point of quite a few debates/discussions. In a few forthcoming posts, I would like to make sense of the provisions sought to be advanced by ACTA primarily from a legal standpoint.

ACTA: A New Culture of Damages… Read More »

T-Series and MySpace: Copyright Infringement and ISP Liability to be argued before the Delhi HC

/ By / Uncategorized

Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama reports a dispute between T-Series and MySpace which was argued before the Delhi High Court last Friday and is listed for arguments again this Thursday. T-Series has alleged infringement of its copyright by MySpace on whose site music content of the former is being uploaded. While MySpace has apparently taken a defence under Section 79 of the amended IT Act, T-Series seems to have taken the stance that the proviso to Section 81 negates any safe

T-Series and MySpace: Copyright Infringement and ISP Liability to be argued before the Delhi HC Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Indian Patent Office Publishes Details of Pharma Product Patents

/ By / Uncategorized

In what is certainly a significant step towards increasing transparency by making available information, the Indian Patent Office has published two documents listing the details of pharmaceutical product patents granted by it in the last three years, one of which specifically lists pharma product patents granted to foreign applicants. This could prove to be instrumental in increasing the rate of post-grant oppositions. That said, could this step draw criticism from certain quarters for bringing only pharmaceutical product patents under the spotlight?

SpicyIP Tidbit: Indian Patent Office Publishes Details of Pharma Product Patents Read More »

Appropriate Office for Filing Divisional Applications?

/ By / Patent

In a crisp and well-written post, Suchita had blogged on Section 3(d). “Frequently Anon”, a regular reader of the blog, posted a comment lamenting on the practice, of certain entities, of filing divisional applications carved out from a parent application in a patent office different from the one in which the parent was filed. Simply put, if A files a parent application ‘X’ at the Chennai Patent Office, according to my reading of the comment, it seems like Frequently Anon

Appropriate Office for Filing Divisional Applications? Read More »

European Court of Justice Rules in Favour of Google Adwords Program

/ By / Trademark

SpicyIP has earlier blogged on the Google Adwords controversy wherein we had discussed the opinion of the Advocate General (AG) before the European Court of Justice in the dispute involving Google and Louis Vuitton. On the 23rd of last month, the ECJ held in favour of Google ruling that its sale of trademarks as keywords under its lucrative Adwords program is not violative of the right of the trademark owners. The ECJ distinguished between use of the registered trademark by

European Court of Justice Rules in Favour of Google Adwords Program Read More »

Scroll to Top