Patent

When Orders don’t Speak: Analysing Tapas Chatterjee vs Controller 

/ By / Patent

Image from here The recent judgment of the Division Bench in Tapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Tapas) had caught the headlines for taking the Indian Patent Office (IPO) to task for issuing an unreasoned order or in the words of the Court a ‘laconic’ order (‘Laconic’ means –using or involving the use of a minimum of words: concise to the point of seeming rude or mysterious).  The word itself has an interesting etymology tracing its origins […]

When Orders don’t Speak: Analysing Tapas Chatterjee vs Controller  Read More »

Part II- Disentangling Infringement and Disclosure in Novo: Should we continue to Celebrate Novartis? 

/ By / Patent

Part II of the Novo v. Dr. Reddy judgement will shift the spotlight to prior claiming under sec. 64(1)(a). The inspiration to write this post came from a 2013 guest post by Darren Smyth, who was kind enough to have an hour long discussion with me on his post. The comments on that post, itself, are a trove of treasure with a long back-and-forth between Smyth and Prof. Basheer.  In that post, Smyth, criticizing the Novartis v. UOI ruling, made a crucial point – “What

Part II- Disentangling Infringement and Disclosure in Novo: Should we continue to Celebrate Novartis?  Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 8 – December 14)

/ By / Biological Diversity, Copyright, Opportunities, Others, Patent, Trademark, Traditional Knowledge

The SpicyIP Podcast Episode 10 with Sheja Ehtesham is now live on our YouTube channel. Deadline for the 1st National Policy Brief Competition by SpicyIP and CIPAM, DPIIT has been extended to 21st December, 2025. Why we should stop using the word ‘technical’ when we talk about Section 3(k)? This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.  Highlights of the Week The SpicyIP TV

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 8 – December 14) Read More »

Why we should stop using the word ‘technical’ 

/ By / Patent

Thanks to Swaraj and Yogesh, conversations with whom on this very ‘technical’ topic served as an inspiration for this piece. I know that the title sounds radical, but hear me out. There has been a flurry of cases in recent times discussing the scope of Section 3(k). All of these cases have, at various instances, come up with different tests/formulations that have one thing in common: the word ‘technical’ appended to the front. This form of technicalism, or the utilisation

Why we should stop using the word ‘technical’  Read More »

Obvious to Whom? – Analysing Dini’s AI Dilemma

/ By / Patent

Responding to Roberto Dini’s recent piece suggesting that all AI inventions are ab initio obvious because they are reproducible for an AI-enabled Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA), Krishna Jani and Tanya Aithani explain how this understanding may not work owing to the heterogeneity and data-dependence of modern models. Krishna and Tanya are fourth-year law students at the Institute of Law, Nirma University. They keenly follow and write on the evolving challenges at the nexus of technology and intellectual property.

Obvious to Whom? – Analysing Dini’s AI Dilemma Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 1 – December 7)

/ By / Copyright, Data Exclusivity, Others, Patent, Trademark

Starting the month with an analysis of the Delhi HC’s judgment in Novo v. Reddy in the Ozempic dispute. Section 3(k) in the news again in Ab Initio v. Controller, and a trademark battle over the word ‘choice’. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.  Highlights of the Week Part I- Novo v. Dr. Reddy: Clear the Way or Else Block The Way

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 1 – December 7) Read More »

Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud! – Analysing  Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Controller of Patents

/ By / Patent

Slightly long post…… The Madras High Court (MHC) has called a spade a spade. In Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Controller of Patents, MHC recognised and attempted to clarify the confusion surrounding Section 3(k). At various instances, we have highlighted that Section 3(k) jurisprudence has been plagued by terminological confusion, leading to fragmentation of jurisprudence and thus producing a cacophony of tests. It is admirable that MHC, for the first time, recognised the confusion surrounding Section 3(k) and some of

Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud! – Analysing  Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Controller of Patents Read More »

Part I- Novo v. Dr. Reddy: Clear the Way or Else Block The Way

/ By / Patent

Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy was a dispute over the drug ‘semaglutide’, also marketed as Ozempic. In September 2025, WHO included semaglutide in the essential medicine list for treatment of type-2 diabetes. The patent over this drug is registered with Novo Nordisk which is yet to launch Ozempic in India. Although the Court upheld prima facie invalidityof Novo’s patent over semaglutide, it has, curiously, declined to allow the Defendant to sell the drug in India. Expectedly, Novo has rushed to launch the Ozempic in India this

Part I- Novo v. Dr. Reddy: Clear the Way or Else Block The Way Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 24-November 30)

/ By / Copyright, Geographical Indication, Opportunities, Others, Patent, Trademark

India’s first scent trademark has been headline of the week – two posts discussing the development. A critical analysis of the Draft GI Logo Guidelines. And Episode 2 of “Let’s IPsa Loquitur” is up with Sonisha Srinivasan speaking to Dr Zakir Thomas. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.  Highlights of the Week Let’s IPsa Loquitur: Dr. Zakir Thomas on Copyright, AI, Technology

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

DHC’s First: Does a Species (Automatically) Anticipate Genus?

/ By / Patent

Since Novartis v. UOI (2013), a growing litany of cases relating to genus-species patent have been decided by various HCs of the country. Post Novartis, a consistent (and contentious) issue has been whether a later species patent stood disclosed and, thus, priorly claimed in the prior genus patent u/s. 64(1)(a). However, the recent decision of the DHC in FMC Corporation v. Natco raises the inverse issue- does a prior species patent anticipate a later genus patent u/s. 64(1)(a)? This question, in my research, has not been previously decided by Indian Courts.  Facts Unlike previous genus-species

DHC’s First: Does a Species (Automatically) Anticipate Genus? Read More »

Scroll to Top