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])

Blackberry Innovates!: Understanding Algorithm Exclusion u/s. 3(k)

/ By / Patent

On 30th August 2024, the DHC gave out two decisions on appeal against the rejection of two Patent applications filed by Blackberry Limited. In this post, I will refer to the two decisions as Blackberry I and Blackberry II. Here, I will contrast the two judgements and answer whether the reasoning employed in them is consistent and reconcilable. I also mention the Mayo Test from the U.S. to understand how it applies in the Indian context, specifically 3(k), and whether the Indian Courts, knowingly or […]

Blackberry Innovates!: Understanding Algorithm Exclusion u/s. 3(k) Read More »

A confused cartoon character with caption written "I think I'm missing something.

Deciding Product by Process: The Dilemma lingers on

/ By / Patent

The Calcutta HC in West Bengal Chemical Industries Limited v. M/s. GTZ (India) Pvt. Ltd., decided on 25 June, refused to grant injunction relief to the Patentee since it could not make out a prima facie case and did not satisfy the balance of convenience. Besides from being short on reasoning (only 3.5 page devoted to analysis out of 23 pages), I argue that the Court fails to distinguish between product, process and product by process patent. Due to this unclarity,

Deciding Product by Process: The Dilemma lingers on Read More »

An Image of a red cap with the words "Make CGPDTM great again" written on front

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delays, Lack of Manpower, Pending Applications- CGPDTM in Need of Institutional Reform

/ By / Patent, Trademark

In Tiger Foods Ingredients (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Madras HC was hearing a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the Trademark Registry to expeditiously dispose of a name-change application (Form TM P). In this case, the application was filed on 05.07.2024 whereas the writ petition before the Court was filed on 11.08.2024.  Interestingly, the writ petition was filed even without applying for expeditious consideration before the registry. The Court also noted that the petitioner, showing undue haste,

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delays, Lack of Manpower, Pending Applications- CGPDTM in Need of Institutional Reform Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM in Spotlight- DPIIT Head takes over CGPDTM IT Division

/ By / Patent, Trademark

DPIIT, in a notification dated 27th August 2024, appointed Subhash Chandra Karol, Director of the DPIIT, as the Head of the IT office of the CGPDTM. It is not clear what has triggered this change. However,  the notification comes close on the heels of a writ petition filed by the AIPOWA in the Delhi High Court (here), which alleges “arbitrary reallocation, withdrawal, and abandonment of patent applications and review petitions” by the Information Technology (IT) Division of the CGPDTM. The writ highlights instances where

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM in Spotlight- DPIIT Head takes over CGPDTM IT Division Read More »

Logos of Online Music Streaming Companies

SpicyIP Tidbit: Doing What the Court Says- DPIIT withdraws notification extending 31D to Online Streaming

/ By / Copyright

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) yesterday i.e. 21st August 2024 issued an Office Memorandum (OM), notifying the withdrawal of OM dated 5th September 2016, which extended the scope of Section 31D of the Copyright Act to Internet Transmissions. Although I could not find the withdrawn OM, it has been discussed by Rahul Bajaj on the blog here. To put it short, Section 31D, inserted after the 2012 amendment, creates a statutory licensing regime which allows a Broadcaster to communicate a literary or musical

SpicyIP Tidbit: Doing What the Court Says- DPIIT withdraws notification extending 31D to Online Streaming Read More »

Hands raised asking for comments

SpicyIP Tidbit: Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024 Notified

/ By / Trademark

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry notified the Trade marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024 on 16th August 2024. Earlier, Rishabh, Praharsh and Swaraj had submitted comments on the Draft Rules, ( notified on 1st July 2024), and these comments can be found here. The notified Rules do not seem to deviate from the Draft Rules in any significant manner. In fact, the only difference I could find between the two was the substitution of the words ‘as he thinks fit’ under Draft Rule

SpicyIP Tidbit: Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024 Notified Read More »

A person sitting behind a table with a poster saying "you cant change my mind"

DHC and 3(k): This time using the ‘Technical effect’ Test

/ By / Innovation, Patent

The Delhi High Court, in AB Initio v. Assistant Controller, allowed the maintainability of divisional applications, which were rejected by the Controller u/s. 3(k) for being a computer program per se. The DHC, in this judgement, continued with its restrictive interpretation of 3(k), narrowing the scope of inventions which are excluded u/s. 3(k). The Court, having wide options of ‘technical’ tests in its arsenal, applied the ‘technical effect’ test in this case. In this post, apart from discussing the background and arguments raised in

DHC and 3(k): This time using the ‘Technical effect’ Test Read More »

Jackie Chan with hands over his head looking confused.

Madras HC on Computer Program and 3(k): Following the DHC way

/ By / Innovation, Patent

Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents marks what may be Madras HC’s first authoritative decision on the patentability of a computer program, in this case, involving command surfaces u/s. 3(k). In this post, first, I will discuss the facts constituting the case. Then, I will discuss whether MHC’s understanding aligns or deviates from DHC’s jurisprudence over the last five years. Then, I engage with MHC’s observation that ‘enablement’ is not a relevant inquiry when deciding the patentability of computer program

Madras HC on Computer Program and 3(k): Following the DHC way Read More »

The logo of Paladin Paints with an Elephant captioned with "Paladin Paints and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd."

JM Nadkarni v. Paladin Paints: Who owns the Patent? 

/ By / Patent, Trade Secret

(edited) In an excellent piece, Palak Shah explores a recent controversy involving Asian Paints (AP), Paladin Paints and Jayram Mangesh Nadkarni (JMN), Director and Technical Advisor of Paladin Paints.  Briefly put, JMN, after leaving AP as a Chief Technology Officer in the 1960s, began his own company in 1985 under the banner “Paladin Paints and Chemicals”. There, according to the piece, he invented a next-gen, green technology-based Single Pack Epoxy Resin (SPER), which provided superior adhesiveness and anti-corrosive properties without requiring any

JM Nadkarni v. Paladin Paints: Who owns the Patent?  Read More »

Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International: How to resell ‘refurbished’ goods under the Trademarks Act? (Part II)

/ By / Trademark

In the previous post, I discussed the various findings of the court in the present case regarding exhaustion, removal and replacement of the original mark and the requirement of ‘full disclosure’. In this post, I will answer as to why the court held that removal and replacement of the original mark was prohibited u/s. 30(3). Then, I will discuss Prof. Kur’s article wherein she discusses the distinction between ‘substantial’ and ‘simple’ repair of a good and the implications of that in the

Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International: How to resell ‘refurbished’ goods under the Trademarks Act? (Part II) Read More »

Scroll to Top