Author name: SpicyIP

Black-and-white logo of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), featuring a map of India with a spinning wheel at the centre, surrounded by Hindi text and the initials “KVIC,” with a Sanskrit motto below.

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences

/ By / Trademark

When a court finds that its interim injunction has been wilfully breached, should punishment necessarily follow? Harsh Kashyap explores this in light of the Bombay High Court decision in KVIC v. Jaishukh N. Bhuta, explaining how the Court draws an important distinction between establishing disobedience and deciding its consequences, clarifying that Order XXXIX Rule 2A is primarily meant to secure compliance rather than punish past conduct. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. What Follows a Breach?

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit – Court’s Friend or Counsel for the Absent Party: Analyzing Delhi Court’s Appointment of Amicus for Vivek Oberoi

/ By / Others

The Delhi High Court’s decision to appoint an amicus curiae to represent Vivek Oberoi’s perspective after his counsel withdrew raises an unusual procedural question in a civil suit pertaining to the right of publicity. This tidbit by Vishwas Kumar Tripathi examines whether such an appointment fits within the established role of an amicus curiae, or risks creating a safety net for plaintiffs who stop actively participating in their own cases. Vishwas is a 4th law student pursuing his B.A. LL.B.

SpicyIP Tidbit – Court’s Friend or Counsel for the Absent Party: Analyzing Delhi Court’s Appointment of Amicus for Vivek Oberoi Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 17-August 23)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Starting the week with our weekly roundup of key IP developments and posts on Mavyret patent abandonment, calls for comments on new patent and trademark manuals, and the DHC’s decision in Intra Cellular Therapies v. Controller. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know below. Highlights of the Week Mavyret Patent Abandonment Does Not Open the Field for Hepatitis C Generics Does one patent

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 17-August 23) Read More »

One Atomic Substitution, Two Giant Hurdles of Disclosure and Efficacy

/ By / Patent

In Intra Cellular Therapies v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court revisited two recurring fault lines in pharmaceutical patent law: the coverage disclosure distinction in genus-species claims and the therapeutic efficacy threshold under Section 3(d). Arnav Kaman argues that while the Court gets parts of the Section 3(d) analysis right, its treatment of coverage as disclosure, its failure to meaningfully engage with the applicable novelty standard, and its silence on inventive step leave the judgment doctrinally unclear and the

One Atomic Substitution, Two Giant Hurdles of Disclosure and Efficacy Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 10- August 16)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Kicking off the week with a roundup of exciting IP developments from August 10 to August 16, in this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review. Discussions on the DHC’s decision in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja, Guidelines on Section 3(m) examinations by the Delhi High Court, and a post on India’s ISP copyright problem. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlight of the Week Playing

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 10- August 16) Read More »

Three-panel bicycle meme showing “Intermediaries” initially riding smoothly under “Section 79: Stay neutral and retain safe harbour,” then being thrown off balance by “Rule 4(1A), IT Amendment Rules, 2026,” and finally lying on the ground beside the fallen bicycle.

India’s ISP Copyright Problem – Self-Inflicted?

/ By / Copyright

India’s intermediary liability framework has long struggled to reconcile copyright enforcement with the protections afforded to platforms under Section 79 of the IT Act. This tension has recently been amplified by the Delhi High Court’s directions seeking clarity from Meta on its policies governing access to its Rights Manager tool (a development we will examine in one of our forthcoming posts), as well as by the amendments to the IT Rules tightening intermediary obligations (discussed by Sonisha here). Against this

India’s ISP Copyright Problem – Self-Inflicted? Read More »

T-mobile logo with the word "T-mobile" in pink

Playing by Different Rules: Why Equating Section 3(m) to European Patent Law Doesn’t Hold Up

/ By / Patent

[This post is co-authored by Swaraj Barooah and Maneesha Gupta. Maneesha is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NMIMS School of Law, Bengaluru, and a participant in the SpicyIP Summer School 2026.] A part of the Patents Act that has seen almost no litigation action till last year, has slowly started finding itself in the midst of more and more patent action. Section 3(m) (mere schemes or rules / method of performing of mental act / method of playing

Playing by Different Rules: Why Equating Section 3(m) to European Patent Law Doesn’t Hold Up Read More »

How Much Evidence Is Enough? The Evidentiary Threshold for Interim Injunctions in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja

/ By / Copyright

How much evidence is enough to establish copyright ownership at the interim stage? Unpacking the Delhi High Court’s latest decision in the Saregama-Ilaiyaraaja case, Umeshwari Ranjan explains how the decision offers an important answer, while leaving some questions unanswered about assignment validity, irreparable injury, and the scope of decades-old rights in the age of digital exploitation. Umeshwari is a third-year B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, and an IDIA Scholar. Her academic interests lie in Intellectual

How Much Evidence Is Enough? The Evidentiary Threshold for Interim Injunctions in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 3- August 9)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

[The Weekly Review is authored by Vishwas Kumar Tripathi. Vishwas is a 4th year law student at RGNUL, Patiala.] Posts on MeitY’s stricter compliance rules for takedowns, Delhi High Court’s decision in HBO v. Streamzy[dot]to, Madras High Court’s Bolar judgement in Novartis v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients, and Delhi High Court’s Alphard decision. This and much more in the second SpicyIP weekly review for August. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 3- August 9) Read More »

Dynamic Injunctions, Website Blocking, and the Limits of Section 79 of the IT Act: Analysing the Delhi High Court’s HBO Order

/ By / Copyright

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.To attempts to strike a balance between the need to effectively combat online piracy and the concerns raised by increasingly expansive website-blocking orders. Explaining the order, Vikram Raj Nanda examines whether the Court’s approach marks a meaningful course correction in the law on dynamic injunctions, and whether its framework for involving ISPs and domain name registrars truly preserves their role as neutral intermediaries. Vikram is a fourth-year student at

Dynamic Injunctions, Website Blocking, and the Limits of Section 79 of the IT Act: Analysing the Delhi High Court’s HBO Order Read More »

Scroll to Top