Author name: Yogesh Byadwal

Yogesh is an analyst at SpicyIP. He secured the first prize in Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition (2025 edition). He is a Final year law student enrolled in the B.A., LL.B.(Hons.) at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. (mail: [email protected])

Part II- Disentangling Infringement and Disclosure in Novo: Should we continue to Celebrate Novartis? 

/ By / Patent

Part II of the Novo v. Dr. Reddy judgement will shift the spotlight to prior claiming under sec. 64(1)(a). The inspiration to write this post came from a 2013 guest post by Darren Smyth, who was kind enough to have an hour long discussion with me on his post. The comments on that post, itself, are a trove of treasure with a long back-and-forth between Smyth and Prof. Basheer.  In that post, Smyth, criticizing the Novartis v. UOI ruling, made a crucial point – “What […]

Part II- Disentangling Infringement and Disclosure in Novo: Should we continue to Celebrate Novartis?  Read More »

Part I- Novo v. Dr. Reddy: Clear the Way or Else Block The Way

/ By / Patent

Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy was a dispute over the drug ‘semaglutide’, also marketed as Ozempic. In September 2025, WHO included semaglutide in the essential medicine list for treatment of type-2 diabetes. The patent over this drug is registered with Novo Nordisk which is yet to launch Ozempic in India. Although the Court upheld prima facie invalidityof Novo’s patent over semaglutide, it has, curiously, declined to allow the Defendant to sell the drug in India. Expectedly, Novo has rushed to launch the Ozempic in India this

Part I- Novo v. Dr. Reddy: Clear the Way or Else Block The Way Read More »

DHC’s First: Does a Species (Automatically) Anticipate Genus?

/ By / Patent

Since Novartis v. UOI (2013), a growing litany of cases relating to genus-species patent have been decided by various HCs of the country. Post Novartis, a consistent (and contentious) issue has been whether a later species patent stood disclosed and, thus, priorly claimed in the prior genus patent u/s. 64(1)(a). However, the recent decision of the DHC in FMC Corporation v. Natco raises the inverse issue- does a prior species patent anticipate a later genus patent u/s. 64(1)(a)? This question, in my research, has not been previously decided by Indian Courts.  Facts Unlike previous genus-species

DHC’s First: Does a Species (Automatically) Anticipate Genus? Read More »

IUCIPRS Panel Discussion: Implications of Data Exclusivity on Access to Medicines and the Pharmaceutical Industry

/ By / Patent

Inter-University Centre for IPR Studies (IUCIPRS), CUSAT is organising a hybrid webinar on “Panel Discussion on the Implications of Data Exclusivity on Access to Medicines and the Pharmaceutical Industry” on December 1, 2025, at IUCIPRS and via Google Meet virtual room. The Moderator for the session will be Mr. Gopakumar K. M., and the Panelists will be Prof. (Dr.) Biswajit Dhar and Ms. Chetali Rao.   Details of the Press Release are below: Background of the Panel Discussion Data exclusivity

IUCIPRS Panel Discussion: Implications of Data Exclusivity on Access to Medicines and the Pharmaceutical Industry Read More »

Novenco v. Xero: Do IP Cases Get a Free Pass to Bypass Sec 12-A? 

/ By / Design, Overlaps in IP, Patent, Trademark

The recent decision of the SC in Novenco Building and Industry v. Xero Energy Engineering seems to have been well taken. Comments online have showered praised over the decision for striking the right balance between procedural lapse and substantive justice. Writing on this blog for over 2 years now, I have learnt one important lesson- the outcome must never shift one’s focus away from the reasoning.  To gauge how much off the mark reasoning in this judgement was, please read this- “the public

Novenco v. Xero: Do IP Cases Get a Free Pass to Bypass Sec 12-A?  Read More »

Justice Prathiba M. Singh appointed Chair of WIPO’s ABJ!

/ By / Others

On 20th October, Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court was appointed as the Chair of the 10-member Advisory Board of Judges (‘ABJ’) of the World Intellectual Property Organization(‘WIPO’). Justice Singh’s tenure is supposed to last for two years (2025-27) where she will be serving as in her personal capacity and not as a representative of India.  According to WIPO website, the ABJ plays a key role in advising and guiding WIPO’s Judicial Institute. It is not an adjudicatory body bur rather an advisory body to help WIPO in building consistency and

Justice Prathiba M. Singh appointed Chair of WIPO’s ABJ! Read More »

Kanye Award Accepting an Award

What’s in a name? Money, Fame and Publicity Rights

/ By / Trademark

Delhi High Court, continuing with its problematic jurisprudence on personality rights, has picked up right where it left off. Recently, it issued injunctions against individuals/entities selling T-shirts, coffee mugs, wallpapers and posters bearing the image/name of Abhishek Bachchan, Aishwarya Bachchan, and Karan Johar. This, as the Court writes, creates a ‘perception of endorsement.’ With due respect, to me, this is beyond ludicrous. However, as I show, for the DHC, this is no laughing matter. In the past few years, Courts have grown increasingly aggressive

What’s in a name? Money, Fame and Publicity Rights Read More »

CRI Guidelines 2025 released!: Same Bottle, Same Wine?

/ By / Patent

The CGPDTM released the much-awaited CRI Guidelines 2025 today evening. The previous version of these guidelines were released in 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017. (2015 guidelines were scrapped after criticism) On a first look, its heartening to see that the released guidelines are replete with illustrative examples. This will help the examiners to apply the law although the jurisprudence on the law has been questionable. The Public notice of IPO also mentions that comments received for version 2.0 as well as feedback received in in-stakeholder meeting will be released soon.

CRI Guidelines 2025 released!: Same Bottle, Same Wine? Read More »

E.R. Squibb v. Zydus: Why the Delhi HC’s Take on Biosimilars May Set a Dangerous Precedent

/ By / Drug Regulation, Patent

In the past two months, Zydus Lifesciences has faced two legal setbacks in litigations for its biosimilar medicines. In April, the U.S. District Court of Delaware rejected Zydus’s challenge against the validity of Astellas’s patent on Myrbetriq, dealing a blow to Zydus’s plan to launch a generic version of the drug in U.S. On 18th July, the Delhi HC dealt another blow– it restrained Zydus from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, advertising or dealing in any bio-similar of Nivolumab.  The

E.R. Squibb v. Zydus: Why the Delhi HC’s Take on Biosimilars May Set a Dangerous Precedent Read More »

Comments on Revised Draft CRI Guidelines 2025- Version 2.0, really? 

/ By / Patent

On 26 June, the CGPDTM issued a public notice inviting comments on the “Revised Draft CRI Guidelines 2025, Version 2.0.” Earlier, in May 2025, we had submitted our comments on the previous edition of the CRI guidelines. (here) This time around, the CGPDTM had organised in-person stakeholder meetings to discuss the comments received for the first version of these guidelines. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan, our prolific blogger, had attended one of these meeting in Chennai on our behalf.  To CGPDTM’s credit, organising stakeholder meetings goes a long way in increasing transparency

Comments on Revised Draft CRI Guidelines 2025- Version 2.0, really?  Read More »

Scroll to Top