Author name: Praharsh Gour

DHC Imposes INR 217 Crores as Damages in a Patent Dispute, Mostly Relying on Estimates

/ By / Patent

The May 16 judgement of the Delhi High Court in Communication Components Antenna v. Mobi Antenna Technologies got every litigant’s antennas up for its imposition of damages of INR 217 Crores on the defendant! In a 83 paged decision authored by Justice Jyoti Singh, the judgement (hopefully) ends a 14 year old patent infringement dispute between TenXc Wireless Inc. (whose patent was later acquired by the present plaintiff- Communication Components Antenna INC) and Mobi Antenna Technologies (the defendant). The suit […]

DHC Imposes INR 217 Crores as Damages in a Patent Dispute, Mostly Relying on Estimates Read More »

Finally, WIPO Adopts a Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated TK! But at What Cost?

/ By / Patent, Traditional Knowledge

25 years since Colombia first brought the issue of protection of IP rights of indigenous communities, and 14 years since the Text based negotiations on the agreement commenced, WIPO finally adopted a Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources (GR) and Associated Traditional Knowledge (TK) on May 24, 2024. Adopted in the recently concluded Diplomatic Conference on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, 2024, the Treaty is the fruit of the WIPO’s special body’s (Intergovernmental Committee on IP and Genetic Resources, Traditional

Finally, WIPO Adopts a Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated TK! But at What Cost? Read More »

What’s in a Name? Taking a look at IPO’s Interesting Observations on Benami Pre-Grant Oppositions

/ By / Patent

The recent decision of the Indian Patent Office in Suman Das v. Arcelormittal (Application no. IN 201717013441) emphasizes the need to pay attention to the content of the opposition itself instead of focusing on the identity and qualifications of the opponent – a point often repeated in previous posts on the blog (see here, here, and here). Considering that it’s only a tidbit we are not going into the merits of the case and interested readers can refer to the

What’s in a Name? Taking a look at IPO’s Interesting Observations on Benami Pre-Grant Oppositions Read More »

Delhi High Court Clarifies the Position on Writ Jurisdiction Against Orders Rejecting a Pre-grant Opposition 

/ By / Patent

In Rich Products Corporation v. The Controller of Patents (dt. May 1, 2024), a division bench of the Delhi High Court has killed two birds with one stone. Hearing an appeal against a Single Judge order refusing to entertain a writ petition against the Controller’s decision to reject a pre grant opposition, the Court stated that the petitioner (who had filed the pre-grant) should rather exhaust existing legal remedies under the Patents Act. The Court clarified that under the extraordinary

Delhi High Court Clarifies the Position on Writ Jurisdiction Against Orders Rejecting a Pre-grant Opposition  Read More »

Some Thoughts on the “Fairness” of the Delhi High Court’s Ericsson-Lava FRAND Determination- Part II

/ By / Patent

[This post is co-authored with Swaraj Paul Barooah.] This is Part II of the two part post on the recent Delhi High Court decision on the Ericsson-Lava SEP dispute. In Part I of the post we focussed on locating reasons for the FRAND determination by the Court. This part focuses on the Court’s findings on and calculation of damages payable to Ericsson, while critiquing the reasons (and the lack thereof) in the judgment. We shall also highlight the issues in

Some Thoughts on the “Fairness” of the Delhi High Court’s Ericsson-Lava FRAND Determination- Part II Read More »

CGPDTM Invites Feedback on IP Administration in the Country

/ By / Copyright, Design, Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark

In a welcome move, the office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has invited feedback on IP administration in the country by CGPDTM, and the Copyright and GI Registries. For this, the Office has released a 6 page questionnaire on April 15 and has kept April 22 11:59 PM as the deadline to share the responses to this questionnaire. The questionnaire specifies that the feedback will be kept confidential and only the aggregate data from the survey

CGPDTM Invites Feedback on IP Administration in the Country Read More »

Looking for the Reasons in the Delhi High Court’s FRAND Determination in the Ericsson- Lava SEP Case- Part I

/ By / Patent

This post is co-authored with Swaraj Paul Barooah. After the Delhi High Court dictated its decision in the long standing SEP dispute between Ericsson and Lava on March 28, 2024, the Court finally published the judgement on April 3, 2024. Penned by Justice Amit Bansal, this mammoth judgement runs for 476 pages (!) and deals with numerous issues like determining validity of the eight suit patents (revoking one), and infringement analysis in SEP cases. Unfortunately, despite the numerous pages, it

Looking for the Reasons in the Delhi High Court’s FRAND Determination in the Ericsson- Lava SEP Case- Part I Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbits – Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction Rejected, Madras High Court Revokes Omega Ecotech’s Patent, and Delhi High Court Upholds IPO’s Patent Rejection

/ By / Patent

Refuse: (1) to vacate an interim injunction, (2) to remand back to the patent office, and (3) to continue allowance of a patent grant! In the last few days, the Madras and Delhi High Courts have passed a few significant orders on these topics. Let’s take a look at these three orders in this quick tidbit. DHC Rejects Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction  In a detailed order passed on January 9, 2023, the Delhi High Court had granted

SpicyIP Tidbits – Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction Rejected, Madras High Court Revokes Omega Ecotech’s Patent, and Delhi High Court Upholds IPO’s Patent Rejection Read More »

Who’s Looking at the Quality of Decisions Granting Patents? Some Concerns from the Man Truck v. Asst. Controller Case

/ By / Patent

[This post is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Aarav Gupta. Aarav is a third-year law student at National Law University, Delhi. He is passionate about geopolitics, foreign policy, international trade, and intellectual property and spends his time reading and watching sports. His previous post can be accessed here. The authors would like to acknowledge an anonymous reader for sharing this development with us.]  Over the course of the last 2 years, we have seen High Courts remand numerous orders (read: reject)

Who’s Looking at the Quality of Decisions Granting Patents? Some Concerns from the Man Truck v. Asst. Controller Case Read More »

Delhi High Court Imposes Damages Worth INR 244 Crores on Lava in the Ericsson-Lava SEP Dispute

/ By / Patent

So far 2024 has been a happening year for the Indian SEP litigation scene. In January we saw Nokia and Oppo settling their SEP disputes around the world. In February, the Delhi High Court directed Oppo to deposit an undisclosed sum as an interim deposit in its SEP dispute with Interdigital. And now, bringing the summer heat a little early in March for Lava, the Delhi High Court has imposed damages worth a whooping INR 244 Crores on the Indian

Delhi High Court Imposes Damages Worth INR 244 Crores on Lava in the Ericsson-Lava SEP Dispute Read More »

Scroll to Top