Patent

An Unreasoned Refusal and a Wrongly Used Provision: Huntington v Union of India and Atomic Energy Patents

/ By / Patent

Lack of reasons in IPO’s orders as a broader issue on one side, and add to it the context of atomic energy-related patents: you have a situation where refusal of patent applications becomes a hotly contested topic. This post  is about a recent Bombay HC judgment (Huntington Alloys v UOI) concerning the refusal of a patent application under Section 4 of the Patents Act. Arising out of a writ petition, the judgment held the government respondents to task; the Court […]

An Unreasoned Refusal and a Wrongly Used Provision: Huntington v Union of India and Atomic Energy Patents Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 27- May 3)

/ By / Copyright, Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark

[This Weekly Review is authored by Naman Singh. Naman is an LLB (Hons.) student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Having a background in music, film, and media, He enjoys all things at the intersection of IP and law.] The call for applications for SPARC Cohort 1 is now open! This week, marking the end of April, also saw a batch of interesting discussions that ranged from lapsed trademarks, generics production, the needed evolution of the GI tag

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 27- May 3) Read More »

‘Venetoclax’ at the IPO: Why Generics Need More than Patent Refusals

/ By / Patent

How much of a win is a patent rejection for domestic generics production? In this post, I discuss the specific points of IPO’s refusal as a continuation of Indian patent jurisprudence on Section 3(d), and why, irrespective of the essentiality of patent law to the discourse on generics, contrary to news reports, a single patent refusal alone is not sufficient in improving access to cancer therapies. The Making of a Blockbuster Drug Venetoclax is a blockbuster cancer drug jointly developed

‘Venetoclax’ at the IPO: Why Generics Need More than Patent Refusals Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 20- April 26)

/ By / Copyright, Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark

After an exciting week of discussion on GIs, ambush marketing, and the right of publicity, here is a round-up of the week with the latest edition of the Weekly Review for April. This week featured discussions on the Delhi High Court’s orders in the Peruvian Pisco appeal and the Allu Arjun personality rights matter. We also had posts on ambush marketing and the IPO’s rejection of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s patent application for a DABUS-invented invention. Are we missing anything? Drop

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 20- April 26) Read More »

The Inventor is still Human: Indian Patent Office’s DABUS Refusal

/ By / Innovation, Patent

In keeping with a broad global trend, the Indian Patent Office has refused Dr. Stephen Thaler’s patent application which sought to recognise Dr. Thaler’s AI system DABUS as the inventor of a ‘food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention’. The Indian patent office’s decision goes a step beyond the refusals issued by other jurisdictions and discusses, along with inventorship, the question of patentability of the claimed invention. The refusal of the Indian Patent Office is a part

The Inventor is still Human: Indian Patent Office’s DABUS Refusal Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 13 – April 19)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Entering the second half of April with a post on the ANI v OpenAI, judgment of which has been reserved by the Delhi HC. Can an entity that is no longer a registered copyright society continue to demand licensing fees? Post on PPL’s ongoing litigation. Another post on the Delhi HC holding that removing an original mark and replacing it with one’s own does not automatically amount to trademark infringement. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 13 – April 19) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 6 – April 12)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Entering the second week of April announcing the faculty line up for the SpicyIP Summer School 2026! Two-part post on the purpose of copyright in academic work in the context of Sci-Hub litigation. Another post discussing whether trademark law can be used to reclaim what design law has deliberately released into the public domain? Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on?

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 6 – April 12) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 30 – April 5)

/ By / Copyright, Design, Others, Patent, Trademark

Beginning April with a rundown of the major IP developments in 2025 on SpicyIP TV! Post on two recent Delhi High Court decisions in Geron and Hirotsu clarifying the boundaries of diagnostic methods exclusion. And another post on the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Emotional Perception AI Limited v Comptroller General of Patents marking a doctrinal shift in how subject-matter eligibility questions regarding computer programmes are evaluated. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe and much

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 30 – April 5) Read More »

Diagnosing the Diagnostic Exclusion: Have Geron and Hirotsu Resolved the Delhi High Court’s Troubles?

/ By / Patent

Section 3(i) of the Patents Act has long left the boundaries of diagnostic method exclusions uncertain, despite repeated judicial engagement. Two recent Delhi High Court decisions now offer the clearest articulation yet, bringing much-needed coherence to this evolving area of law. Shubham Thakare and Arpanjot Kaur explain these orders, highlighting how they not only clarify the legal position but also sharpen the policy tensions underlying the provision. Shubham is a third-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National Law School

Diagnosing the Diagnostic Exclusion: Have Geron and Hirotsu Resolved the Delhi High Court’s Troubles? Read More »

The UKSC’s “Any Hardware” Shortcut: Why Emotional Perception AI Raises More Questions Than It Answers — And Why India’s Framework Does Better

/ By / Patent

The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Emotional Perception AI Limited v Comptroller General of Patents marks a doctrinal shift in how subject-matter eligibility questions regarding computer programmes are evaluated. Irrespective of its impact, Pragati argues that the judgment is marked by a test that the Supreme Court itself chose not to apply and further contains three errors of reasoning. Pragati Upadhyay is a final-year student at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, with a research focus on the intersection

The UKSC’s “Any Hardware” Shortcut: Why Emotional Perception AI Raises More Questions Than It Answers — And Why India’s Framework Does Better Read More »

Scroll to Top