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])

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 »

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 »

Scroll to Top