Author name: Praharsh Gour

Praharsh Gour is an Editor and Researcher at SpicyIP, where he writes on developments in intellectual property law, innovation policy, and international trade. His work focuses on the intersection of IP and international trade, particularly the realpolitik implications of global IP enforcement for the Global South, including questions of access, regulatory governance, and institutional reform. He holds a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from Hidayatullah National Law University and a Master’s degree from South Asian University. Prior to joining SpicyIP, he worked as a Senior Research Fellow at the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, where he assisted in matters concerning countervailing duties, antidumping, and safeguard investigations.

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 »

Patent Rules Published: A Quick Look 

/ By / Patent

On March 15, the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024 were published in the Gazette of India, making crucial changes in the Indian patent regime. There will likely be more posts in the coming days that take a deeper look into these Rules. For now, on a quick skim, some of the notable amendments are:-  Revised Time limits  The Amended Rules revised timelines/ time limits for the following:-  Certificate of Inventorship  Amendments Concerning Requirement to File Information about Foreign Applications  Amendments Concerning

Patent Rules Published: A Quick Look  Read More »

PAC Chairperson Demands Probe by Chief Vigilance Commission Into Corruption Allegations Against CGPDTM!

/ By / Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark

“Out of the frying pan, into the fire” seems to sum up the current predicament of the Office of the Controller General of Patent, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM). Only a few weeks after somehow organizing the Patent and Design Examiners’ Exams, and fixing the long-standing issue with the trademark registry website, the office has ended up in another turmoil. As reported by the Print, the Press Trust of India, and tweeted by the ANI, Member of Parliament and Chairperson

PAC Chairperson Demands Probe by Chief Vigilance Commission Into Corruption Allegations Against CGPDTM! Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Launches Open House Helpdesk Portal

/ By / Others

In a welcome development, the office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) launched the Open House Helpdesk Portal on February 14, to “provide swift and effective resolution to the queries and grievances of applicants and stakeholders” on a plethora of issues. Registering oneself with the portal seems pretty straightforward where a person has to put in their name, email id, and mobile phone number. In addition to the above, one would also need to choose a

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Launches Open House Helpdesk Portal Read More »

Scroll to Top