Patent

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 10- August 16)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Kicking off the week with a roundup of exciting IP developments from August 10 to August 16, in this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review. Discussions on the DHC’s decision in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja, Guidelines on Section 3(m) examinations by the Delhi High Court, and a post on India’s ISP copyright problem. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlight of the Week Playing […]

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

T-mobile logo with the word "T-mobile" in pink

Playing by Different Rules: Why Equating Section 3(m) to European Patent Law Doesn’t Hold Up

/ By / Patent

[This post is co-authored by Swaraj Barooah and Maneesha Gupta. Maneesha is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NMIMS School of Law, Bengaluru, and a participant in the SpicyIP Summer School 2026.] A part of the Patents Act that has seen almost no litigation action till last year, has slowly started finding itself in the midst of more and more patent action. Section 3(m) (mere schemes or rules / method of performing of mental act / method of playing

Playing by Different Rules: Why Equating Section 3(m) to European Patent Law Doesn’t Hold Up Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 3- August 9)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

[The Weekly Review is authored by Vishwas Kumar Tripathi. Vishwas is a 4th year law student at RGNUL, Patiala.] Posts on MeitY’s stricter compliance rules for takedowns, Delhi High Court’s decision in HBO v. Streamzy[dot]to, Madras High Court’s Bolar judgement in Novartis v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients, and Delhi High Court’s Alphard decision. This and much more in the second SpicyIP weekly review for August. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 3- August 9) Read More »

Bearing the Burdens of Bolar

/ By / Patent

The Madras High Court’s decision in Novartis AG v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients offers the first post-trial examination of the evidence required to invoke Section 107A for exports to get regulatory approval. While the Court’s attempt to bring greater evidentiary clarity to the Bolar exemption is welcome, Arnav Kaman argues that its approach risks placing burdens on manufacturers that may undermine the provision’s underlying purpose. Arnav is a 5th-year law student from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. He’s

Bearing the Burdens of Bolar Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (27 July-2 August)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Others, Patent, Trademark

Stepping into August with posts on the DHC’s order in ANI v. OpenAI, Interdigital v Transsion, the Ribociclib saga, and digital archive. 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 ANI v. OpenAI: User Rights, Fair Dealing, and the Future of AI in Indian Copyright Law (Part I) The Delhi High Court’s much-awaited interim order in ANI v. OpenAI addresses several

SpicyIP Weekly Review (27 July-2 August) Read More »

Announcing the book “Fractures in IP, Trade, and Health: Centering a Public Health Framework”

/ By / COVID-19, Overlaps in IP, Patent, Publication

After a few years (!) of discussing these developments bit by bit (across US-India timezones), and weaving together thoughts and issues that we’ve also separately been writing on over the last few years, I’m thrilled to say that Prof Srividhya Ragavan and I have just published our book titled “Fractures in IP, Trade, and Health: Centering a Public Health Framework” (OUP 2026). The book is available on Oxford Academic’s online platform here or for purchase here. An Indian edition is

Announcing the book “Fractures in IP, Trade, and Health: Centering a Public Health Framework” Read More »

InterDigital v. Transsion: A ‘Comparatively’ Better Pro-Tem Order?

/ By / Patent

At 100 pages, the pro tem security deposit order issued by the Delhi High Court in favour of InterDigital is the longest of the court’s SEP ad-interim orders, and offers a lot to unpack. To its credit, the order presents an overall balanced opinion, a clarity in delineation of the ad-interim stage from a future interim injunction and a steady point of view on the persuasive value of foreign decisions. This case changes some big rules of the pro tem

InterDigital v. Transsion: A ‘Comparatively’ Better Pro-Tem Order? Read More »

Part II: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question

/ By / Drug Regulation, Patent

Continuing from Part I, Rishabh Upadhyay explains that making a patented medicine free on paper does not necessarily make it accessible in practice. Through Rajasthan’s procurement and distribution model for Ribociclib, he argues that India’s access-to-medicines challenge is ultimately an infrastructural one, not merely a patent-law problem. Rishabh is an LL.M. candidate at South Asian University, having completed his undergraduate legal studies at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University. His interest lies in intellectual property jurisprudence, with particular emphasis

Part II: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question Read More »

Part I: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question

/ By / Patent

For years, Section 92 and 100 levers have occupied a central place in discussions on improving access to patented medicines in India. Yet, despite repeated calls for their use, the mechanism has remained almost entirely dormant. This 2-part post by Rishabh Upadhyay explains that the ongoing Ribociclib litigation before the Kerala High Court offers an opportunity to ask whether inaction over Section 92 and 100 requests is a consequence of governmental reluctance, or whether it reveals a deeper structural reality.

Part I: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question Read More »

When Patent Appeals Survive but Patents Don’t: Taking a Look at the DHC Sulzer Decision

/ By / Patent

Two appeals. Two defeats. Yet, as Maneesha Gupta explains, Sulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs may be remembered less for the patent that failed than for the appeal that survived, adding another chapter to the debate over intra-court patent appeals. Maneesha is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NMIMS School of Law, Bengaluru, and a participant in the SpicyIP Summer School 2026. When Patent Appeals Survive but Patents Don’t: Taking a Look at the DHC Sulzer

When Patent Appeals Survive but Patents Don’t: Taking a Look at the DHC Sulzer Decision Read More »

Scroll to Top