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://i.imgflip.com/8z8h4c.jpg

[PART I] Synthetic Singers and Voice Theft: BomHC protects Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights

/ By / Others

[A big thanks to Praharsh for his inputs on the post.]  On July 26, 2024, the Bombay High Court (BomHC) delivered a significant order in the case of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, marking a big step in the protection of artists’ personality rights against the unauthorised use of their voices by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. In this case, noted singer and composer Arijit Singh requested legal protection against the unauthorised commercial use of his personal attributes, such as […]

[PART I] Synthetic Singers and Voice Theft: BomHC protects Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights Read More »

https://media.istockphoto.com/id/472032039/photo/music-note-on-the-dollar-background.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=v8DrgTDjDs0zF4ClSqlpH0dvUc42g-W-LOOv2nQDUWw=

DHC strikes the Right Chord Clarifying that a Pending Compulsory License Application Will Not Justify Allegedly Infringing Activity to Continue 

/ By / Copyright

On July 12, 2024, the Delhi High Court (DHC) issued two orders in a matter involving a dispute between Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and Al-Hamd Tradenation concerning interim injunctions and compulsory licensing (CL). This post analyses the astuteness of the two orders and the implications this jurisprudence will have on future litigations involving similar matters. The Interim Injunction Grant… On July 12, 2024, a single bench (SB) of the DHC granted an interim injunction against Al-Hamd Tradenation in the case

DHC strikes the Right Chord Clarifying that a Pending Compulsory License Application Will Not Justify Allegedly Infringing Activity to Continue  Read More »

https://mms.businesswire.com/media/20240416207524/en/1056493/23/PMI_global_V_Blue_HIRES.jpg

Gone Up In Smoke: Analysing the Controller’s Rejection of an E-cigarette Patent under Section 3(b)

/ By / Patent

The single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of J. Mini Pushkarna on 4 July 2024 passed an order in Phillip Morris Products SA v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design admitting an appeal against the Controller’s decision rejecting a patent application for “aerosol generating article with multi material susceptor” and directed similar appeals to be clubbed together along with the extant appeal (Para 10). The rejection had been based on the invention being “contrary to public order

Gone Up In Smoke: Analysing the Controller’s Rejection of an E-cigarette Patent under Section 3(b) Read More »

https://5.imimg.com/data5/SELLER/Default/2024/1/380779349/IR/RZ/CU/47099310/perjeta-420-mg-500x500.jpeg

Taking a Look at Quia Timet Injunctions in Light of F-Hoffman-La Roche v. Zydus

/ By / Patent

On July 9, 2024, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court (DHC), presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, issued a 6-page order in the matter of F-Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited (pdf), granting an interim injunction to Roche until the next date of hearing. The case is intriguing because the DHC may have misgauged the need for such an injunction by focusing solely on Zydus’s conduct without first making a prima facie finding on the

Taking a Look at Quia Timet Injunctions in Light of F-Hoffman-La Roche v. Zydus Read More »

Yakshini is here! Analysing the Pocket FM v. Novi Digital Judgement

/ By / Copyright

In a recent judgement, dated 13 June 2024, the single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, dismissed a plea filed by Pocket FM Private Limited (the Plaintiff) seeking a temporary injunction against Novi Digital Entertainment Private Limited (the Defendant) in the case of Pocket FM Private Limited v. Novi Digital Entertainment Private. The injunction sought to prevent Novi Digital from publishing or making available the alleged video adaptation of Pocket FM’s audio series

Yakshini is here! Analysing the Pocket FM v. Novi Digital Judgement Read More »

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMekNZNaqt6nfgTI4AlBxLcBDzc8gk06tvKg&s

Before the Breakthrough: Does Prior Art Include Wrongfully Published Applications?

/ By / Patent

The Conundrum In an interesting order, the Madras High Court, in the case of Dr. Vandana Parvez vs The Controller of Patents, dealt with a withdrawn patent application that had been wrongfully published and then later cited as prior art for the same applicant’s subsequent patent application!  A brief into the facts of the case: This is an appeal for challenging the rejection of a patent application for an invention titled “Method and System for Providing Effective Generation and Delivery

Before the Breakthrough: Does Prior Art Include Wrongfully Published Applications? Read More »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhealth.economictimes.indiatimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpharma%2Fbeta-drugs-limited-expands-portfolio-with-bevacizumab-adcimib-and-trastuzumab-vicentra-biosimilars%2F101802349&psig=AOvVaw01VYQUTQSmD1R0VxVyRsMl&ust=1719755907845000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBEQjRxqFwoTCNCU1bj8gIcDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Bevacizumab and Trastuzumab Biosimilars Case Continues, With No End in Sight  

/ By / Patent

The Indian pharmaceutical landscape has seen the emergence of biosimilars like Bevacizumab and Trastuzumab (used as first-line treatment of advanced HER2-positive gastric cancer) commanding a market worth around 640 crores. In this (delayed yet relevant) post, we will discuss the bizarre ongoing Trastuzumab and Bevacizumab litigation before the DHC, focussing on the September 11, 2023 joint judgement passed in two connected cases (Roche versus DCGI, and versus Cadila, respectively). It is bizarre because Roche is exerting rights with respect to

Bevacizumab and Trastuzumab Biosimilars Case Continues, With No End in Sight   Read More »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.livelaw.in%2Ftop-stories%2Fbombay-high-court-covid-19-covaxin-clinical-trial-saket-gokhale-168466&psig=AOvVaw0gaz6Xv_YYDh5Akx0gowP4&ust=1719754816659000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBQQjhxqFwoTCMDvg5X4gIcDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

What’s in a Missing Name? Some Questions Around the Covaxin Patent Application

/ By / Patent

[A big thanks to Swaraj for his inputs on the post.] The Exclusion of ICMR from the Patent Application Last weekend, a series of unusual developments regarding the Covaxin patent (Patent Application Number: 202041007559) generated significant buzz. Notably, in The Hindu, Jacob Koshy published back-to-back articles, with the first one appearing on June 22, 2024 (read here (paywalled)). In this article, Koshy reveals that Bharat Biotech (BBIL) filed a patent application for Covaxin without listing the Indian Council of Medical

What’s in a Missing Name? Some Questions Around the Covaxin Patent Application Read More »

Secrets and Standards: Analaysing Pro-tem Securities in InterDigital v. Oppo [PART II]

/ By / Patent

This is Part II of the two-part post on the recent Delhi High Court (DHC) decisions on the InterDigital-Oppo SEP dispute. In Part I of the post (here), the single judge bench judgement on 31st May 2024 regarding confidentiality and disclosure of agreements for FRAND rate determination was focussed upon. On the same day, the Division Bench (DB) of the DHC consisting of J Vibhu Bakhru and J Tara Vitasta Ganju in Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v. InterDigital

Secrets and Standards: Analaysing Pro-tem Securities in InterDigital v. Oppo [PART II] Read More »

Secrets and Standards: Balancing the Confidentiality of SEPs in InterDigital v. Oppo [PART I]

/ By / Patent

In two significant judgements passed on May 31, a Single Bench and a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court have clarified certain nuances pertaining to Standard Essential Patents (SEP) in India (read more about SEPs here). Last month Swaraj and Praharsh, in their two-part post (read here and here), highlighted some problematic aspects of adjudication over SEP disputes in the country. Contrary to the extensive pro-patentee approach in that case (as pointed out by the authors there), the Courts

Secrets and Standards: Balancing the Confidentiality of SEPs in InterDigital v. Oppo [PART I] Read More »

Scroll to Top