Competition Law

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 9 – February 15)

Announcing the Finalists of the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation 2025! Posts on Delhi HC’s evolving jurisprudence on pro-tem security deposits in FRAND trials, Supreme Court to decide CCI’s jurisdiction over abuse of patent rights, and the Supreme Court allowing the Petitioners to map their claims against Zydus’s product in Nivolumab infringement dispute. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out […]

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 9 – February 15) Read More »

SC to decide CCI’s Jurisdiction over abuse of Patent Rights

Can CCI decide whether a patentee, in exercising his exclusive rights under the Patent Act, has violated the provisions of Competition Act, 2002? Readers of this blog must be aware how hotly contested this question is (here, here, here, here and here). From initially holding that CCI does have jurisdiction to investigate, a DHC DB had ultimately ousted CCI’s power to investigate abuse of patent rights. Last year, disposing of a SLP against the DB judgement, the SC had refused to decide the above issue since the parties had reached a

SC to decide CCI’s Jurisdiction over abuse of Patent Rights Read More »

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2025

[This post is completely human authored 🙂 These humans include – Praharsh Gour, Vasundra Koul, Arshiya Gupta, and Vikram Raj Nanda. Selection and Supervision by- Praharsh Gour, Swaraj Paul Barooah, and Bharathwaj RamakrishnanResearch Inputs from Yohann Titus Mathew, Riddhi Yogesh Bhutada, Ayush Shetty, Sumit Kumar Singh, Shailraj Jhalnia, Himanshu Mishra, Bhavya Gupta, Aali Jaiswal, Anushka Kanabar, Srishti Gaur, Arshya Wadhwa, and Daanish Naithani.] 2025 was quite an eventful year. On the judicial side, we saw a variety of novel developments, such

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2025 Read More »

SpicyIP 2024 Year End Review

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2024

[This post is authored by – Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan, Md. Sabeeh Ahmad, Aishani Chatterjee, Swaraj Barooah, and Praharsh Gour with research inputs from Aarav Gupta, Tejas Misra, Aditi Bansal, Mansi Bhatia, Yukta Chordia, Bhuwan Sarine, Shravya Pandre, Deepali Vashist, and Malavika S. Nair.] 2024 has been an explosive year for IP developments in India, with more IP divisions coming up in different High Courts, an increasing number of IP registrations and an overall higher degree of attention on IP issues in

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2024 Read More »

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

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 »

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

[This post has been co-authored with Jyotpreet Kaur, Tejaswini Kaushal, Praharsh Gour, and Swaraj Barooah].  As 2023 comes to an end, in line with our annual tradition, we take stock of the top IP developments that occurred this year. And as we move to the cusp of the new year, here’s to wishing our readers a very happy and healthy year ahead! As in previous years, we have divided these developments into five categories: a) Top 10 IP Judgements/Orders (Topicality/Impact)

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023 Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 24 – July 30)

Last week saw some pretty interesting discussions on the blog.  Detailed posts analysing the recently-pronounced landmark judgements in Ericsson v CCI and Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla & Others were published along with a quick post on DPIIT’s notice over collection of royalties by copyright societies.  This weekly review is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Yashna Walia. Yashna is a fifth-year law student at UILS, Panjab University, Chandigarh. Her area of interest lies in IP and corporate law. Highlights of The Week SpicyIP Tidbit: The

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 24 – July 30) Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 10- January 16)

After another busy week here at SpicyIP, we bring out the quick summaries of the 6 blogposts that were put up, along with 12 case summaries and national and international IP developments for you. Important IP cases that we’re missing out on? Especially from other High Courts? Please let us know so we can include them!   Highlights of the Week Bill to Decriminalise IP Offences Misses the Mark and Dilutes Significant Provisions Discussing the proposed amendments to the IP

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 10- January 16) Read More »

Competition law flexibilities for pharma patents? Vifor v CCI

Story so far: Recently, the Delhi High Court was tasked with examining an interesting competition and IP case. An informant (requesting confidentiality) filed a competition law complaint against Vifor International AG (Vifor) before the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Unfortunately, the facts of the complaint are not clear from the Delhi High Court decision since the complaint was filed seeking confidentiality.   Some facts can be gleaned from the arguments of both sides. It appears that Vifor holds patents for

Competition law flexibilities for pharma patents? Vifor v CCI Read More »

Revised Non-Personal Data Governance Framework and Intellectual Property Implications – Part II

In Part I of this post, I highlighted the possible copyright and trade secret protection over the data mandated to be shared under the Revised Non-Personal Data (NPD) Governance Framework (the Report/Revised Report), and how the Report either overlooks or misunderstands these possible IP protections. In this part, I discuss the shortcomings in the Revised Report’s justifications for overriding IP protection and other rights over NPD. I also briefly explore alternatives to the Report’s heavy-handed regulatory architecture by turning to

Revised Non-Personal Data Governance Framework and Intellectual Property Implications – Part II Read More »

Scroll to Top