Patent

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Calls for Comments and Suggestions on New Draft Pharma and Biotech Patent Application Guidelines (2026)

/ By / Biological Diversity, Drug Regulation, Others, Patent

In the time of this oncoming monsoon, it feels like its raining draft guidelines from the Controller General’s office! The office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has released two new sets of draft guidelines today for the examination of patent applications related to pharmaceutical & biotechnology inventions. These draft guidelines are targeted towards streamlining the patenting procedures of healthcare inventions. All stakeholders invited to submit their comments or suggestions within 15 days from the date of […]

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Calls for Comments and Suggestions on New Draft Pharma and Biotech Patent Application Guidelines (2026) Read More »

[Part II] AI in the Patent Office: When Human Oversight Fails, Who Is Accountable?

/ By / Patent

In Part I of the post, I discussed the contents of the Guidelines and how using AI may cognitively affect the officers while examining a patent application.  From Personal Satisfaction to Institutional Accountability: Where does the Buck Stop? Now, I understand that some of the arguments in Part I are targeted towards the idea of using AI in patent examination and not the Guidelines per se. However, despite all the caveats for human oversight, the Guidelines state that the concerned

[Part II] AI in the Patent Office: When Human Oversight Fails, Who Is Accountable? Read More »

[Part I] AI in the Patent Office: Can Human Oversight Neutralise AI’s Influence on Patent Examination?

/ By / Patent

The CGPDTM issued new guidelines on August 7, this time to regulate AI use in the patent examination process. In a 16-page document followed by annexures of illustrative examples and a checklist for the officers, the Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures seek to maintain a balance between harnessing the benefits of using AI tools in patent examination while ensuring that their use does not compromise the technical, statutory, and quasi-judicial functions of the Office. 

[Part I] AI in the Patent Office: Can Human Oversight Neutralise AI’s Influence on Patent Examination? Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30)

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

After an action-packed week, we have posts remembering one of the most remarkable IP administrators– Mr. P. H Kurian, on the appointment of an amicus in the Vivek Oberoi personality rights case, and on the DHC decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents. This and much more in the last Weekly Review of the month. Anything that we are missing out? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30) Read More »

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents highlights a basic but important point: patent objections must be tied to the claims and evidence, not merely asserted. Harsh Kashyap explains how the Court applied this principle to objections on inventive step, Section 3(d), and Section 3(i), while also flagging the questions the judgment leaves unresolved. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller Read More »

Adventures of Controller: Citing CGK suo motu in Post-Grant Opposition

/ By / Patent

A recent Bombay High Court decision adds an important procedural dimension to the growing judicial scrutiny of how Controllers assess obviousness. Maneesha Gupta explains how in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the problem was not the absence of evidence for common general knowledge, but the Controller’s reliance on evidence that was never disclosed to the Opposition Board or the patentee before revoking the patent. Maneesha is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NMIMS School of

Adventures of Controller: Citing CGK suo motu in Post-Grant Opposition Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 17-August 23)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Starting the week with our weekly roundup of key IP developments and posts on Mavyret patent abandonment, calls for comments on new patent and trademark manuals, and the DHC’s decision in Intra Cellular Therapies v. Controller. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know below. Highlights of the Week Mavyret Patent Abandonment Does Not Open the Field for Hepatitis C Generics Does one patent

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 17-August 23) Read More »

Mavyret Patent Abandonment Does Not Open the Field for Hepatitis C Generics

/ By / Drug Regulation, Patent

July 28, 2026 marked eight years of the National Viral Hepatitis Control Program (NVHCP). Launched under the National Health Mission, the program aims to eliminate Hepatitis C from India by 2030 through free testing and access to generic versions of direct acting-antivirals (DAAs). One of the most effective drugs for curing patients of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) currently in the market is AbbVie’s Mavyret. It is recognised as the first and only DAA approved to treat both acute and chronic

Mavyret Patent Abandonment Does Not Open the Field for Hepatitis C Generics Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Calls for Comments and Suggestions on New Draft Patent and Trademark Manuals (2026)

/ By / Others, Patent, Trademark

The office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has released two new notifications regarding updates to the office manuals. Yesterday, the office invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders on the Draft Manual of Patent Office (Practice & Procedure), 2026, to be submitted within the next 30 days. Today, the office has invited suggestions on the Draft Manual of Trademark Office (Practice & Procedure), 2026, but within a lesser window of the next 15 days. Comments on the draft manuals

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Calls for Comments and Suggestions on New Draft Patent and Trademark Manuals (2026) Read More »

One Atomic Substitution, Two Giant Hurdles of Disclosure and Efficacy

/ By / Patent

In Intra Cellular Therapies v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court revisited two recurring fault lines in pharmaceutical patent law: the coverage disclosure distinction in genus-species claims and the therapeutic efficacy threshold under Section 3(d). Arnav Kaman argues that while the Court gets parts of the Section 3(d) analysis right, its treatment of coverage as disclosure, its failure to meaningfully engage with the applicable novelty standard, and its silence on inventive step leave the judgment doctrinally unclear and the

One Atomic Substitution, Two Giant Hurdles of Disclosure and Efficacy Read More »

Scroll to Top