Patent

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (14 September-20 September)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Patent, Trademark

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)

/ By / Drug Regulation, Others, Patent

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)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

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 »

Section 14 is Not Section 25: Delhi High Court Revives Sugammadex Patent Bid

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court’s order in Fresenius Kabi v. Controller may ultimately turn on a Section 14 violation, but the concerns it flags go well beyond procedure, extending to hindsight, prior-art mosaicking, and the treatment of technical evidence. Pranay Borupothu examines the decision and unpacks these procedural and substantive concerns in the Controller’s reasoning. Pranay is a 3rd-year LL.B.(Hons.) student at Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur, and has a keen interest in IP laws. Section 14 is

Section 14 is Not Section 25: Delhi High Court Revives Sugammadex Patent Bid Read More »

General Comment on the IPO’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026)

/ By / Drug Regulation, Others, Patent

A few days ago, we had informed our readers that they could participate in the open call for comments and suggestions on the Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Pharmaceuticals (2026). Several such notifications have been released by the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) in the past few weeks (see here and here). The notification of the new draft of the Pharmaceutical Guidelines was released on September 4, 2026

General Comment on the IPO’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026) Read More »

Image of a box of KRYXANA Ribociclib 200 mg film-coated tablets, marked “For sale in India only.”

SpicyIP Tidbit: All Eyes on Kerala HC’s Final Hearing in the Ribociclib Matter Today

/ By / Patent

[This post is authored by Rishabh Upadhyay. Rishabh is an LL.M. candidate at the Faculty of Law, Delhi 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 on Patent Law, Access to Medicines, and International Law.] The Kerala High Court is set to conduct the final hearing in the long-running Ribociclib litigation today. In July, I had written (Part I, Part II) on this

SpicyIP Tidbit: All Eyes on Kerala HC’s Final Hearing in the Ribociclib Matter Today Read More »

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 »

Scroll to Top