Patent

Equitable Pandemic Response: Delink Data Access from Benefit Sharing in the PABS Annex

Long Post Ahead! In May 2025, the World Health Organization’s member states adopted the Pandemic Agreement. However, until its Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) Annex is adopted, it cannot be opened for signature. Currently, the talks on the annex remain stuck on one question: should benefit sharing be tied to access to pathogen data? In this post, I argue that this linkage is itself the problem. Drawing on the model proposed by Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) before the Intergovernmental Working

Equitable Pandemic Response: Delink Data Access from Benefit Sharing in the PABS Annex Read More »

The Ghost of Section 100’s Past!

As Halloween approaches, a particular editorial at ET seems spooked by the prospect of lawful and equitable access to medicines! In doing the opposite of what its title suggests, ‘Protect Patients and Patents Smartly’, the editorial piece published on October 15, 2026 is an unfortunate example of legal misinformation and misinterpretation, stuck in the old binary of access versus patent. This published piece runs contrary to years of judicial wisdom, contradicts itself, conflates different legal questions and advocates for a

The Ghost of Section 100’s Past! Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Putting the Cart Before the Horse: A Look into Esteve Pharmaceuticals vs CPD

In the August 7 order passed in Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. vs Controller of Patents and Designs (2026), the Delhi High Court adopted a tiered approach in examining the grounds for rejecting a patent application. It accepted that the invention “Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs” was novel (differing from the Controller on 2(1)(j)), but it lacked inventive step (upholding the Controller’s objections under 2(1)(ja)). And because it lacked inventive step, the Court did not find examining further under 3(d) and 3(e)

SpicyIP Tidbit: Putting the Cart Before the Horse: A Look into Esteve Pharmaceuticals vs CPD Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 5-October 11)

From notable orders of the past week to key national and international IP developments, here’s the latest edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review. Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments! Posts this Week The Innovation Brief, NLU Delhi, is inviting blog post submissions on the ‘Impact of the Intersection of Innovation and Access by the EU-India FTA’. The last date to share submissions is October 20, 2026. Interested readers can read the call for submissions below. Case

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 5-October 11) Read More »

Ribociclib: Access to Medicine Collides with Patent, Price and Policy

In this co-authored post, Ambika and Rishabh break down the recent Kerala High Court ruling on government use of patented inventions under Section 100 and situate it in the broader context of other Ribociclib patents and pending litigations that will impact the drug’s access; all this, at a time when patent enforcement and drug pricing rules might be changing. The judgment’s epilogue references popular cinema for recall value (see pg 56 here), but the real blockbuster of this story is

Ribociclib: Access to Medicine Collides with Patent, Price and Policy Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 28- October 4)

Beating the Monday blues after a long weekend, here we are with the first Weekly Review of October, featuring a post on Section 124, case summaries of orders passed by different High Courts last week, and updates on other national and international IP developments. Anything we’re missing? Drop a comment and let us know below. Highlights of the Week Can Section 124 be Invoked in Section 47 Cancellation Proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999? The interplay between trademark infringement

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 28- October 4) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (21 September- 27 September)

Posts on the Delhi High Court’s Zara v Zora ruling, the Madras High Court’s ruling in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah, and a post remembering late Dr. Pinaki Ghosh. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh, WBNUJS IP Chair Professor Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh’s work in intellectual property took him from laboratories and corporate boardrooms to

SpicyIP Weekly Review (21 September- 27 September) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (14 September-20 September)

In this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review, we have comments submitted by a few of our team members on the IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Pharmaceuticals, 2026, along with case summaries of the orders and judgments we were able to find. If we’ve missed anything, drop a comment below and let us know. Highlight of the Week Specific Comments on the IPO’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026) The IPO’s 2026 Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines

SpicyIP Weekly Review (14 September-20 September) Read More »

Specific Comments on the IPO’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026)

There is no easier way to put it – the IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Pharmaceuticals, 2026 (“2026 Draft Guidelines”) released 15 days ago have severe problems and require substantial reworking. There are many concerning reasons warranting an immediate and thorough revision of this draft for it to avoid disrupting patent law and patent prosecution as we know it. The 2026 Draft Guidelines have misquoted certain statutory provisions, misinterpreted some judicial decisions, misapplied

Specific Comments on the IPO’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 7- September 13)

After another busy week and a long weekend, here we are with the SpicyIP Weekly Review with discussions on the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach to personality rights, a closer look at the Court’s decision in the Sugammadex patent dispute. We also had posts on copyright strikes and intermediary due diligence, the ongoing Ribociclib litigation before the Kerala High Court, the paper trail in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo, and the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach towards well-known marks and TM

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 7- September 13) Read More »

Scroll to Top