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])

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 »

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

/ By / Trademark

The judgment in Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International delivered on 21st May 2024 by the Delhi HC has the potential to change how the ‘refurbishment industry’ in India works. The industry for resale of used products has been a part of several trademark litigations in the past. (here) As I discuss in this post, the refurbishment industry has several stakeholders involved. However, constant litigations threaten the growth and expansion of the industry (here). The findings in this judgement, however, promise to turn around

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

Law Commission’s 289th report- Trade Secret and Economic Espionage

/ By / COVID-19, Patent, Trade Secret

The Law Commission (LC) recently released its report no. 289- “Trade Secret and Economic Espionage”. (Part 1, Part 2and Part 3) In this post, I will discuss the key elements of the report and the draft bill proposed by the LC. First, I will analyze the provision on Compulsory Licensing of Trade Secrets included in the bill and discuss its upside and downside in the current form. Second, I point out the key provisions in the bill which indicate a shift from

Law Commission’s 289th report- Trade Secret and Economic Espionage Read More »

A meme with a picture of Robert Downey Junior depicted as patent office asking '"How was I supposed to know"

Google LLC v. Controller of Patents: Foreign Disclosure requirement and Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024 

/ By / Patent

In Google LLC v. Controller of Patents, the court was hearing an appeal against the refusal to grant a patent on grounds of ‘lack of inventive step’, ‘lack of novelty’ and lack of ‘technical effect’ u/s. 3(k). In this post, I will not focus on the merits of the case. Rather, I will focus on the part relating to foreign application disclosure, discussed in Para 53-55. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh upon the Appellant for failing to

Google LLC v. Controller of Patents: Foreign Disclosure requirement and Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024  Read More »

A banner of 'Telugu Akademi' with its name written in English and Telugu

Is Every ‘Educational Use’ a ‘Fair Use’? Looking at the AP HC’s Curious Decision on Textbooks and Copyright

/ By / Copyright, Publication

In Addala Sitamahalakshmi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that no copyright vests in mathematical and science textbooks. It also observed that ‘educational use for the benefit of students and educational institutions’ is covered under ‘fair use’. I argue that the reasoning used to reach the above conclusions is both problematic and incomplete. The HC fails to take into account the relevant facts of the case in deciding the present case. In this post, I will

Is Every ‘Educational Use’ a ‘Fair Use’? Looking at the AP HC’s Curious Decision on Textbooks and Copyright Read More »

DHC’s Concerning Order in Kudos Pharmaceuticals v. Natco Pharma: Will it lead to Evergreening? 

/ By / Innovation, Patent

Recently, a Single judge bench of the Delhi High Court, in Kudos Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., granted an interim injunction in favour of Kudos Pharmaceuticals, restraining the defendants (Natco) from ‘manufacturing and selling, or in any manner, dealing with Olaparib, either under the brand name BRACANAT or under other brand name. In the present suit, Kudos, seeking a permanent injunction, argued that Natco was infringing the suit patent IN’ 720 (Claim 1 called ‘Olaparib’; species patent) by manufacturing and selling ‘its

DHC’s Concerning Order in Kudos Pharmaceuticals v. Natco Pharma: Will it lead to Evergreening?  Read More »

Scroll to Top