Patent

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 18 – May 24)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Entering the last week of May with a post tracing Indian copyright doctrine and what exactly does it protect. Post on the Delhi HC’s ruling in Bansal v. Philips, a consequential SEP/FRAND decision. And a post on the expanding and increasingly amorphous scope of personality rights in India, most recently in the case of Aniruddhacharya Ji Maharaj. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are […]

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 18 – May 24) Read More »

What’s in a Name? The Quintessential Misnomers That Are Untested SEPs: Thoughts on the Division Bench Judgment in Bansal v. Philips

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court’s recent Division Bench ruling in Bansal v. Philips Division Bench Judgment may well become one of the most consequential SEP/FRAND decisions in India so far. In an incisive post, methodically breaking down the Division Bench decision, Aniruddh Bhatia explains in detail the decision as it deals with essentiality, infringement, FRAND dance, calculation of damages, confidentiality clubs and exhaustion. Aniruddh Bhatia is an advocate at an IP-focused law firm with eight years of litigation experience, six of

What’s in a Name? The Quintessential Misnomers That Are Untested SEPs: Thoughts on the Division Bench Judgment in Bansal v. Philips Read More »

Breaking: Breakthrough for India’s SEP Jurisprudence in new Philips v. Rajesh Bansal ruling!

/ By / Patent

DVDs are long gone from our markets, yet their SEPs continue to be on pause, play, rewind! A momentous decision has been delivered by the Delhi High Court today – a big, refreshing and important update for the developing standard essential patent (SEP) jurisprudence. The division bench decision comes from Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla and is a turning point in the decade long SEP litigation between Philips and Rajesh Bansal. The case was among the initial SEP

Breaking: Breakthrough for India’s SEP Jurisprudence in new Philips v. Rajesh Bansal ruling! Read More »

Keep the ‘Technical’, Let’s Bring Consistency in 3(k)

/ By / Patent

Section 3(k) is one of the most curious provisions in the Indian Patents Act. A mere 13-word sub-section, 3(k) has today become a hot mess. Despite the release of CRI Guidelines in July 2025 (the fourth such iteration of the guidelines), 3(k) is none the fuzzier.  The actual scope of the words used in 3(k) continues to elude us.  Last week, the Delhi HC, in Blackberry v. Controller, had another opportunity to opine on patentability u/s. 3(k). The invention in question was a method to

Keep the ‘Technical’, Let’s Bring Consistency in 3(k) Read More »

https://imgflip.com/i/arrrw6

So Near, Yet So Far: A Look at India’s Vaccine Push Caught Between Promise and Policy

/ By / Patent

Disclaimer: This post discusses a development from mid-March 2026. As readers of this blog are no doubt aware, vaccine policy in India has never quite been a straight road. It is always puddled with poor transparency and poorer access. Two developments (one involving an international IP licensing arrangement for a Nipah vaccine, and the other concerning the curious sidelining of an indigenous HPV vaccine, both involving the Serum Institute of India (SII)) offer another opportunity to assess the state of

So Near, Yet So Far: A Look at India’s Vaccine Push Caught Between Promise and Policy Read More »

Looking for a FRANDly Precedent? DHC missteps in Malikie v. Xiaomi pro-tem order

/ By / Patent

A new dawn, and a new pro-tem order is out from the Delhi High Court. A short while ago I wondered if temporary deposit orders were here to stay, seems like the answer is yes! The Malikie v. Xiaomi pro-tem order is not the best news for the development of Indian SEP jurisprudence. It adds confusion to assessment of essentiality, nuances of rate calculation and shows the faults of finding reasonings in precedents where fact-sensitive analysis require different decisions. The

Looking for a FRANDly Precedent? DHC missteps in Malikie v. Xiaomi pro-tem order Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 4 – May 10)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Into the second week of May with a post on the Bombay HC’s reliance on section 65 for setting aside a refusal of atomic energy patent. Another post examining the Academy’s control on the Oscar statuette that blurs the boundaries between contract, property, and IP law. 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? Drop a comment below to let us know.

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 4 – May 10) Read More »

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 »

Scroll to Top