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])

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 »

A meme from the popular sitcom 'The office.'

Finally, Relief for Refurbishers! Softening Stance of DHC

/ By / Trademark

Western Digital Technologies v. Hansraj Dugar, on a plain reading, may not seem a significant judgement. To me, however, it indicates a continuing shift in attitude of the Delhi High Court towards refurbishers. In this post, my aim is to give a round-up on cases where trade mark infringement has been alleged owing to refurbishment of goods. I argue, analyzing the recent case, that the Court is softening its stance on infringement when it comes to refurbishers. What explains this shift? How

Finally, Relief for Refurbishers! Softening Stance of DHC Read More »

A two-panel meme in the style of the "This Is Fine" comic. The top panel has text: "When the Court relies on the Plaintiff's in-house lab report for scientific evidence...". The bottom panel shows a cartoon dog calmly sitting at a table in a room engulfed in flames. The dog says, “Tests? Crop guidelines? Independent expert? Nah, this is fine.” Below the image, a caption reads: "🔥 Scientific rigour left the chat."

Interim Injunction Granted under PPVFRA!

/ By / Plant Variety Protection

Perhaps for the first time, a Hyderabad Court granted an interim injunction application under the PPVFRA. To me, however, the order stands out for all the wrong reasons. The Court, in deciding the injunction, relies solely on the Plaintiff’s in-house laboratory to prima facie decide infringement. It omitted to appoint a scientific expert u/s. 66 of the Act while deciding crucial scientific questions. It further failed to delineate the parameters for deciding an interim injunction application under the PPVFFRA. In

Interim Injunction Granted under PPVFRA! Read More »

The intervention scene from Breaking Bad

Figuring out sufficient level of human intervention in BTS Research International v. Controller

/ By / Others, Patent

In BTS Research International v. Controller of Patents, the Calcutta HC decided an appeal against the Controller’s order that refused to grant a patent to a trihybrid cell. The cell was held to be ‘part of an animal/human’ which is unpatentable u/s. 3(j). In my research, this is the first time CHC has decided a case on 3(j), particularly the scope of ‘essentially biological processes.’ The Court also discusses section 3(c) that prohibits patenting of “living substances and non-living substances occurring

Figuring out sufficient level of human intervention in BTS Research International v. Controller Read More »

"A vintage sheet music cover for the song 'We're Almost There' by Michael Jackson.

Injunction against Natco refused: Public Interest Triumphs – Maybe

/ By / Patent

Some very notable developments for those watching rare-disease litigation in India. On 24th March, in F Hoffman v. Natco, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction against Natco from manufacturing a generic version of Risdiplam. While that was a temporary cause of celebration for patients, we have heard from readers that this morning the Division Bench, in an appeal, has ordered a status quo till the next hearing- (FAO(OS) COMM 43/2025). Natco also appears to have given an undertaking to

Injunction against Natco refused: Public Interest Triumphs – Maybe Read More »

Image of Dr. Kshipra Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das.

A Big Win for Dalit Researchers: Implications for IP

/ By / Copyright, Overlaps in IP

[Long Post ahead!] In Nov. 2023, the Bombay HC (Nagpur Bench) delivered a salient judgement, with significant implications for both the SC/ST Act and “Intellectual Property”. Rightfully, the case was highlighted for its positive outcome in providing monetary relief to the Dalit researchers for the theft of their research data. However, while the case is certainly a situation of just and deserved outcomes, the jurisprudential path the case took brings up some concerns that have gone unscrutinised —can research data, often uncopyrightable

A Big Win for Dalit Researchers: Implications for IP Read More »

Logos of the Lodha and HoABL

Of house marks and family disputes: Taking a look at the Lodha v. Lodha TM battle 

/ By / Trademark

Macrotech Developers (formerly known as ‘Lodha Developers’) filed a trademark infringement suit against the ‘House of Abhinandan Lodha’ (HoABL). Macrotech, in the suit, has sought an injunction against HoABL from using the TM ‘Lodha’ to prevent confusion among consumers. Further, Macrotech has sought Rs. 5000 cr. in damages. Abhishek Lodha (CEO, Macrotech Developers), in this interview, has said that the suit is to ensure that the consumers are not confused that any other developer using the Lodha name is associated with Macrotech or

Of house marks and family disputes: Taking a look at the Lodha v. Lodha TM battle  Read More »

Two fighters facing off at a weigh-in event, with a man in a red shirt standing between them to separate them. The fighter on the left is labeled "CONTRACT LAW," the one on the right is labeled "COPYRIGHT LAW," and the man in the middle is labeled "COURTS," representing the courts mediating disputes between contract law and copyright law.

Discussing Lemley and Henderson’s  “The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions”

/ By / Copyright, Others

“There is a certain hypocrisy in arguing that training models on the public’s data is fair use but then seeking to prevent others from doing the same thing.” -Lemley and Henderson Generative AI companies have been in the news all around this year. For both good and not-so-good reasons. Various Suits have been filed against these companies, arguing that the training process violates copyright protection. (USA,Germany, Canada). No one knows what the outcome of these ongoing disputes will be. Amidst this,

Discussing Lemley and Henderson’s  “The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions” Read More »

The image features a meme inspired by a popular scene from Game of Thrones. It shows a character dressed in medieval-style attire holding a sword with the text: Top text: "BRACE YOURSELVES" Bottom text: "DILUTION IS COMING"

DHC goes the MHC way!: Diluting Business Method Exclusion u/s. 3(k)

/ By / Patent

In Comviva Technology v. Assistant Controller, the DHC was hearing an appeal against the rejection order of the Controller. The Controller held that the invention related to ‘business methods’ and ‘computer program per se’ u/s. 3(k)which was unpatentable. In this post, I argue that Comviva moves away from the DHC’s holding in OpenTV and adopts the approach of MHC in Priya Randolph while deciding the patentability of business methods. I also argue that the interpretation of 3(k) adopted by the Court in this case, prima facie, seems contrary to the legislative intent.

DHC goes the MHC way!: Diluting Business Method Exclusion u/s. 3(k) Read More »

Scroll to Top