Author name: SpicyIP

Unpacking MeitY’s Proposed IT Rules Amendments: Between Regulation and Practicality

/ By / Copyright, Others

On the recent amendments to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) proposed by MeitY, Akshat Agrawal explains how, despite a sound regulatory intent, the proposed amendments suffer from a few conceptual problems that may render them either unenforceable or unworkable. Akshat is a Litigator and is the Founder and Counsel at AASA Chambers, where he provides Counsel and Of Counsel services. He is also a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge. His previous pieces can be

Unpacking MeitY’s Proposed IT Rules Amendments: Between Regulation and Practicality Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: EBC V Rupa Publications: Pick ‘Pocketing’ Trade Dress

/ By / Trademark

[This post is authored by Mayank Yadav. Mayank is a third year  B.A. LL.B. student from National Law School of India University, Bangalore with a keen interest in IP Law and ADR.]  The Delhi High Court recently passed an order in a dispute between two big Indian publishers- EBC Publications and Rupa Publications on the rights concerning the look and feel of India’s most widely circulated humble pocket Constitution. On 25th September 2025, the Court, granted an interim injunction to EBC

SpicyIP Tidbit: EBC V Rupa Publications: Pick ‘Pocketing’ Trade Dress Read More »

ONOS’s APC Guidelines: Opening Access or Opening Pockets?

/ By / Copyright

In light of the newly introduced ONOS guidelines on Article Processing Charges, Hafsah takes a closer look at the issues they raise and offers thoughtful suggestions on how ONOS could approach them more effectively. Hafsah Azhar Ansari is a third year student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. ONOS’s APC Guidelines: Opening Access or Opening Pockets? By Hafsah Azhar Ansari India’s One Nation, One Subscription (ONOS) scheme introduced new guidelines for covering Article Processing Charges (APCs) in “high-quality” open-access journals,

ONOS’s APC Guidelines: Opening Access or Opening Pockets? Read More »

Under Development ≠ Imminent Infringement: Delhi HC Offers Welcome Clarification on the Scope of Qua Timet Injunctions

/ By / Patent

In the recent refusal for a quia timet injunction by the DHC, Vikram Raj Nanda examines the reasons closely and writes on the contrasting jurisprudential development over ‘offer to sell’ under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970. Vikram Raj Nanda is a third year student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru with a keen interest in IP law, Competition Law and Arbitration.  Under Development ≠ Imminent Infringement: Delhi HC Offers Welcome Clarification on the Scope of Qua

Under Development ≠ Imminent Infringement: Delhi HC Offers Welcome Clarification on the Scope of Qua Timet Injunctions Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 6 – October 12)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Developments from CHC concerning GUIs, and clarification on the tests under Section 3(d) and 3(e), DHC’s clarification on the constitution of confidentiality clubs, and the first couple of podcasts from our latest endeavors– SpicyIPTV This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Please note that we have used perplexity to shorten some of the case summaries and present them in a more reader-friendly manner.  Highlights

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 6 – October 12) Read More »

Part II: Genus-Specie Disputes: Thoughts on the Risdiplam Division Bench Judgment

/ By / Patent

Continuing the discussion on the Delhi High Court’s DB judgment in Risdiplam case, Part II of the post by Dr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon discusses the Court’s finding on the “Person in the Know” yardstick to assess obviousness and the comeback of public interest in high stakes pharma patent cases. Dr. Tandon is an academician turned lawyer, with the law firm Saikrishna and Associates. He continues to teach patent law- rather sporadically- at ILI and ISIL. The views expressed herein are

Part II: Genus-Specie Disputes: Thoughts on the Risdiplam Division Bench Judgment Read More »

Part I: Genus-Specie Disputes: Thoughts on the Risdiplam Division Bench Judgment

/ By / Patent

On the recent Risdiplam judgement by a DB of the Delhi High Court, Dr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon takes a look at some of the crucial observations of the Court and writes on the resurrection of the disclosure-coverage conundrum, and the person in the know standard for assessing obviousness. In this two part post, Part I will deal with the Court’s observations on coverage- disclosure conundrum and where it fits in the age old discussion taking place on the issue within

Part I: Genus-Specie Disputes: Thoughts on the Risdiplam Division Bench Judgment Read More »

Royalties And Research: A Forgotten Faultline In Indian Copyright Law?

/ By / Copyright

In light of the recent Sci-hub blocking order, Anushka Aggarwal looks at Sections 19(3) and 19A of the Copyright Act in the context of copyright assignment agreements that regulate academic publishing in India. Anushka is a fourth-year student at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Royalties And Research: A Forgotten Faultline In Indian Copyright Law? By Anushka Aggarwal The recent controversy over access to academic materials in India has, unsurprisingly, sparked conversations about systemic barriers to knowledge. For

Royalties And Research: A Forgotten Faultline In Indian Copyright Law? Read More »

The 3(E)-3(D) Fumble: When Synergy Gets Lost in Application

/ By / Patent

On the CHC’s judgment clarifying the difference between the statutory filters under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), Srishti Gaur breaks down the Court’s findings and explains how this is not the first time that courts have faced confusion between the two provisions. Srishti is a third-year student at National Law University, Delhi. Her previous posts can be accessed here. The 3(E)-3(D) Fumble: When Synergy Gets Lost in Application By Srishti Gaur Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970 (henceforth “Act”)

The 3(E)-3(D) Fumble: When Synergy Gets Lost in Application Read More »

Not Every Shiny Idea Travels Well to be an Invention! Lessons from the Saint-Gobain Patent Battle

/ By / Patent

On the Delhi High Court’s decision rejecting Saint Gobain’s appeal against a rejection order, Srishti Gaur explains the Court’s rationale on non-obviousness and novelty, and highlights why the Court was right in rejecting the argument for granting a patent merely because it had been granted by a foreign jurisdiction. Srishti is a third-year student at National Law University, Delhi. Her previous posts can be accessed here. Not Every Shiny Idea Travels Well to be an Invention! Lessons from the Saint-Gobain

Not Every Shiny Idea Travels Well to be an Invention! Lessons from the Saint-Gobain Patent Battle Read More »

Scroll to Top