Author name: Tejaswini Kaushal

Tejaswini is a SpicyIP Analyst and a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She has a keen interest in Intellectual Property Law, Technology Law, and Corporate Law.

https://imgflip.com/i/9mband

Madras High Court and the (Mis-Placed) Judicial Economy: Analysing the Clouds Behind the Silver Lining

/ By / Patent

While sometimes less may be more, this is certainly not always the case. Madras High Court (MadHC)’s recent judgement is one example of this. A Single Bench of the MadHC, headed by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, delivered an intriguing judgment on February 27, 2025, in Navya Network Inc. v. The Controller of Patents & Designs (pdf). The case involved an appeal against the order dated March 13, 2023, which had dismissed Patent Application No. 951/CHENP/2013, which the MadHC upheld, however, by […]

Madras High Court and the (Mis-Placed) Judicial Economy: Analysing the Clouds Behind the Silver Lining Read More »

https://i.imgflip.com/9jf0c7.jpg

Blowing Hot and Cold: DHC’s Observations on Commercialisation when Raising the Section 107A Exemption

/ By / Patent

[A big thanks to Swaraj and Praharsh for their inputs] On February 4, 2024, the Delhi High Court, in Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v. Granules India Limited  (pdf), recorded a settlement in a patent dispute concerning Ruxolitinob, a drug used to manage myelofibrosis, a rare bone marrow disorder. The settlement was reached after Granules’ assurance that its activities were not for commercial use of the drugs and were covered under the Bolar type research exemption under Section 107A (for

Blowing Hot and Cold: DHC’s Observations on Commercialisation when Raising the Section 107A Exemption Read More »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecourieronline.co.uk%2Freview-prima-facie-national-theatre-live%2F&psig=AOvVaw0GhUg3XlHYd2bUE7ekS1SM&ust=1738923306680000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBQQjRxqFwoTCKio6KTorosDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAS

The New Patent Playbook in Action: A Look at Rules 25(1) and 55(3) of the Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 for Pre-Grant Oppositions

/ By / Patent

Recently, an interesting order was issued in Patent Application No. 202417006578 (pdf), by Vikas Verma, Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office (Chennai), in the context of a pre-grant opposition (PGO) against an application by Pharmazz Inc. What makes this decision particularly noteworthy is that it may be the first instance (at least as per the guess in a LinkedIn post by LCGN LLP here) where a new rule for PGO has been applied. Specifically, it concerns the requirement

The New Patent Playbook in Action: A Look at Rules 25(1) and 55(3) of the Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 for Pre-Grant Oppositions Read More »

https://imgflip.com/i/91ilzk

Curing the Rare: Government Issues Tender to Acquire 17 Patented Rare Disease Medicines

/ By / Others

[A big thanks to Swaraj for his inputs in this piece and to Aditi Bansal for her help in curating the database below.] A Sweet Pill to Swallow? On August 9, 2024, the Ministry of Finance (MoF), Government of India, issued a circular (pdf) for a Global Tender Enquiry to increase the threshold for procurement of 127 medicines instead of the previously decided 120, inviting tenders for up to 200 crore, further extendable as required. Drugs for rare diseases also

Curing the Rare: Government Issues Tender to Acquire 17 Patented Rare Disease Medicines Read More »

https://i.imgflip.com/97rk7u.jpg

Injunction or No Injunction: DHC Goes Back on its Rejection of Injunction in the Pertuzumab Dispute

/ By / Patent

[A big thanks to Praharsh for his inputs on the post.]  In early July, I wrote (here) about the grant of an interim injunction to Roche by a single-judge bench (SB) of the Delhi High Court (DHC), presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula in F-Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited (pdf) [hereinafter referred to as “SB Order 1”]. This dispute, primarily a suit for a permanent injunction (CS(COMM) 159/2024) regarding infringement of the Pertuzumab patent, was intriguing

Injunction or No Injunction: DHC Goes Back on its Rejection of Injunction in the Pertuzumab Dispute Read More »

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOGNjZTU3MDQtMjU2ZS00MzBlLWFmNDktMDVkYzEzNmJjMmJhXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg

Labrats, Patents, and Section 3(i): Madras High Court Grants Patent for Antibody Production in Genetically Modified Non-human Animals

/ By / Patent

In an intriguing analysis by the Madras High Court (MadHC) on 26 September 2024 in the case of Kymab Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, the court set aside the rejection of Kymab Limited’s patent application by the Assistant Controller. It determined that methods for the production of antibodies through the genetic modification of non-human animals are patentable, clarifying that they do not fall under the exclusions outlined in Section 3(i) of the Patent Act 1970. This post

Labrats, Patents, and Section 3(i): Madras High Court Grants Patent for Antibody Production in Genetically Modified Non-human Animals Read More »

https://i.imgflip.com/94i584.jpg

‘Adding’ to the Jurisprudence: Assistant Controller’s Analyses on the Ayyangar Committee’s Reservations to the Swan Committee for Patent of Addition

/ By / Patent

It is rather tragic that very few Controllers in India write sufficiently detailed and reasoned decisions, and the position is even dismal when one hopes to come across well-analysed jurisprudential orders for patent grants/rejections. To narrow this down further in scope, let’s take ‘patents of addition.’ By themselves, these have not attracted much limelight. The last major highlight that I can recall was regarding the applicability of Section 39 on patents of addition in the Selfdot case (covered nicely by

‘Adding’ to the Jurisprudence: Assistant Controller’s Analyses on the Ayyangar Committee’s Reservations to the Swan Committee for Patent of Addition Read More »

https://i.imgflip.com/95hi7k.jpg

A Followup on Lenacapavir: Gilead enters into Voluntary Licensing Agreements in 120 LMICs

/ By / Drug Regulation, Patent

Just a day after our update on the Lenacapavir patent oppositions (here), Gilead has signed “Royalty-Free Voluntary Licensing Agreements” (VLAs) (pdf) with generic manufacturers aimed at boosting HIV prevention in “high-incidence, resource-limited countries.” The focus is squarely on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as highlighted in Gilead’s official reports (here) and various media outlets (here). This strategic move reflects Gilead’s commitment to expanding access to vital treatments where they’re needed most, and this post will fact-check the coverage of these

A Followup on Lenacapavir: Gilead enters into Voluntary Licensing Agreements in 120 LMICs Read More »

https://www.eatg.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/lenacapavir.webp

Patent Application for Gilead’s Lenacapavir Opposed: Saving Generics of HIV Drugs?

/ By / Others

[A big thanks to Swaraj for his inputs on the post.] The Indian Patent Office (IPO) is set to hear objections against Gilead Sciences’ patent claims for Lenacapavir, an HIV drug. This situation highlights the ongoing struggle between patent protections and access to essential medicines. Pre-grant oppositions (PGOs) are crucial in India’s patent system, allowing challenges to patents before they’re granted. The outcome could significantly affect the availability of affordable HIV treatments, emphasising the need to balance innovation with public

Patent Application for Gilead’s Lenacapavir Opposed: Saving Generics of HIV Drugs? Read More »

https://www.safetysign.com/images/source/large-images/F7302.png

(Over) Expanding the Circle: DHC Allows In-house Employees to Access Confidential Documents in InterDigital v. Oppo

/ By / Patent

In June 2024, I covered some nuances regarding confidentiality and disclosures in the SB and DB orders passed in InterDigital Technology Corporation vs. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd (here and here). Part I of this set of posts analyzed the SB’s 31st May 2024 decision on the disclosure of agreements between the parties and different third parties. There, the SB upheld InterDigital’s request for the disclosure of license agreements between Oppo and Qualcomm, a third-party SEP holder, on the

(Over) Expanding the Circle: DHC Allows In-house Employees to Access Confidential Documents in InterDigital v. Oppo Read More »

Scroll to Top