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])

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 »

SpicyIP Tidbit: The Competition Act v. The Patent Act: Catch 22

/ By / Competition Law, Patent

The Supreme Court last week issued notice on a special leave petition filed by the Competition Commission of India(CCI) against the Delhi High Court’s decision in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Competition Commission of India and Anr. The main question before the SC is whether the provisions of Patent Act would prevail over the Competition Act in cases alleging anti competitive behaviour or abuse of dominant position.  Background In that judgement, discussed by Praharsh here, the primary question was whether an agreement relating to protection of

SpicyIP Tidbit: The Competition Act v. The Patent Act: Catch 22 Read More »

Product-by-Process Claim: DHC to the Rescue

/ By / Innovation, Patent

The Delhi High Court (DHC) judgement in Vifor (International) Ltd. v. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.,explaining and allowing product-by-process claims as fundamentally concerned with the product in question, is of seminal importance for Indian Patent jurisprudence. In my opinion, the judgement, although verbose, brings much needed clarity on Patent-by-Process in India by locating it within the Act, laying out its scope and applicability and interaction with Process Patent u/s 48(b).  This judgement, decided by a Division Bench (DB) in an appeal against a

Product-by-Process Claim: DHC to the Rescue Read More »

A Relook at Business Methods in light of Madras High Court’s Decision in Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller 

/ By / Patent

In Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller, Madras High court rejected the contention that the subject invention was excluded for being business method. The findings of this short judgement have possible significant implications on the jurisprudence regarding 3(k) and business methods in the Patent Act. The judgement comes on the heels of  OpenTV v. The Controller of Patents and Designs in July which had rejected a patent application for being primarily a claim to business method. In this post, I will contrast the two

A Relook at Business Methods in light of Madras High Court’s Decision in Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller  Read More »

Delhi High Court Clarifies that Opposition and Examination Run on Parallel Tracks 

/ By / Patent

In Novartis AG v. NATCO, the DB of DHC had to determine the “extent of engagement of pre-grant opposition in the course of proceedings initiated by Controller requiring the applicant for a patent to amend or modify the application, the complete specification thereof or any other related document”. In other words, whether the pre-grant opponent has a ‘right to hearing’ during the “examination” process. The court in this case sought to balance the need for rigorous examination with the need for expeditious

Delhi High Court Clarifies that Opposition and Examination Run on Parallel Tracks  Read More »

MHC Interprets Section 39’s Interplay with Patent of Addition Applications

/ By / Patent

In this post I will discuss Selfdot Tech. v. Controller General of Patents passed by the Madras High Court. I will engage with the arguments raised by the appellant and the respondent with regard to patent of addition, the parent patent application and the scope of Sec. 39. Further, I will analyze the reasoning used by the court in creating a different standard of treatment for divisional applications and patent of additions. I argue that the court narrows the scope

MHC Interprets Section 39’s Interplay with Patent of Addition Applications Read More »

Scroll to Top