Author name: SpicyIP

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 »

Bearing the Burdens of Bolar

/ By / Patent

The Madras High Court’s decision in Novartis AG v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients offers the first post-trial examination of the evidence required to invoke Section 107A for exports to get regulatory approval. While the Court’s attempt to bring greater evidentiary clarity to the Bolar exemption is welcome, Arnav Kaman argues that its approach risks placing burdens on manufacturers that may undermine the provision’s underlying purpose. Arnav is a 5th-year law student from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. He’s

Bearing the Burdens of Bolar Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (27 July-2 August)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Others, Patent, Trademark

Stepping into August with posts on the DHC’s order in ANI v. OpenAI, Interdigital v Transsion, the Ribociclib saga, and digital archive. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week ANI v. OpenAI: User Rights, Fair Dealing, and the Future of AI in Indian Copyright Law (Part I) The Delhi High Court’s much-awaited interim order in ANI v. OpenAI addresses several

SpicyIP Weekly Review (27 July-2 August) Read More »

Part II: Small Fines, Big Platforms: The CCPA on PhysicsWallah, McAfee, and the Cost of Getting Caught

/ By / Others

Part I of the post examined the CCPA’s orders against PhysicsWallah and McAfee, and argued that neither the misleading-advertisement nor the forced-action findings in McAfee sit comfortably within their own definitions. In Part II, Anjali Tripathi and Kartik Sharma turn to the deeper problem those findings point at. Anjali is a lawyer, writer and artist with an interdisciplinary interest in critical approaches to law, visual storytelling, and design. She writes on technology, IP and culture. Kartik is a law graduate

Part II: Small Fines, Big Platforms: The CCPA on PhysicsWallah, McAfee, and the Cost of Getting Caught Read More »

Part I: Small Fines, Big Platforms: The CCPA on PhysicsWallah, McAfee, and the Cost of Getting Caught

/ By / Others

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has been going after dark patterns for some time now. In this two-part post, Anjali Tripathi and Kartik Sharma analyse the CCPA orders passed against PhysicsWallah and McAfee. Part II of the post goes beyond these orders and looks at the deeper implications for design interfaces and dark pattern regulation. Anjali Tripathi is a lawyer, writer and artist with an interdisciplinary interest in critical approaches to law, visual storytelling, and design. She writes on

Part I: Small Fines, Big Platforms: The CCPA on PhysicsWallah, McAfee, and the Cost of Getting Caught Read More »

Digital Archiving: The MVP!

/ By / Copyright

“Books are for use” may have been written with physical libraries in mind, but the principle is just as relevant in today’s digital age. With copyright amendments reportedly in the offing, Maneesha Gupta examines why India’s library and archival exceptions need updating to enable meaningful digital preservation and access to knowledge, particularly for students and researchers. 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. Digital Archiving:

Digital Archiving: The MVP! Read More »

Part II: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question

/ By / Drug Regulation, Patent

Continuing from Part I, Rishabh Upadhyay explains that making a patented medicine free on paper does not necessarily make it accessible in practice. Through Rajasthan’s procurement and distribution model for Ribociclib, he argues that India’s access-to-medicines challenge is ultimately an infrastructural one, not merely a patent-law problem. Rishabh is an LL.M. candidate at South Asian University, having completed his undergraduate legal studies at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University. His interest lies in intellectual property jurisprudence, with particular emphasis

Part II: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question Read More »

Part I: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question

/ By / Patent

For years, Section 92 and 100 levers have occupied a central place in discussions on improving access to patented medicines in India. Yet, despite repeated calls for their use, the mechanism has remained almost entirely dormant. This 2-part post by Rishabh Upadhyay explains that the ongoing Ribociclib litigation before the Kerala High Court offers an opportunity to ask whether inaction over Section 92 and 100 requests is a consequence of governmental reluctance, or whether it reveals a deeper structural reality.

Part I: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question Read More »

Who Owns the Tools of Expression? A Copyright Question Across Time

/ By / Copyright

What happens when someone claims ownership over an alphabet or an entirely new language? Revisiting a little-known 1958 government opinion, Anshika Tripathi examines the limits of copyright and asks whether the law can ever protect the building blocks of communication. Anshika is a recent B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) graduate from Government Law College, DAVV, Indore. Her interests lie in intellectual property, consumer protection, and the intersection of law and technology. She was also a participant at the SpicyIP Summer School 2026.

Who Owns the Tools of Expression? A Copyright Question Across Time Read More »

Scroll to Top