Call for Submissions: Indian Journal of Law and Technology [Volume 21] and IJLT Blog (Submissions on Rolling Basis)

/ By / Opportunities

NLSIU’s Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) is inviting submissions for Volume 21 of the Journal and the IJLT Blog, on a rolling basis. For more details please take a look at their call for submissions below. Call for Papers: Indian Journal of Law and Technology [Volume 21] and IJLT Blog (Submissions on Rolling Basis) The Editorial Board of the Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) for 2024-25 is inviting original and unpublished submissions for Volume 21 of […]

Call for Submissions: Indian Journal of Law and Technology [Volume 21] and IJLT Blog (Submissions on Rolling Basis) Read More »

Moving Towards a ‘Wrongful Obtainment’ Standard Part – II

/ By / Others, Patent

In the previous post, I discussed the Indian position on wrongful obtainment and also took a small detour into UK law to understand how they resolve their entitlement claims. In this post, I will be arguing for a more systematic approach to deciding our wrongful obtainment claims based on the precedents present in UK law, and we will also discuss Markem Corp v Zipher Ltd (England and Wales Court of Appeal, 2005), which Yeda overruled and its relevance in the

Moving Towards a ‘Wrongful Obtainment’ Standard Part – II Read More »

Moving Towards a ‘Wrongful Obtainment’ Standard Part – I

/ By / Others, Patent

Wrongful obtainment is an unexplored area of Patent law when compared to other, fancier and more contested topics, such as Inventive step or Subject matter exclusion. It rarely comes up for discussion, and any legal development surrounding wrongful obtainment usually goes under the radar. Hence, it was a surprise to notice two recent orders (pdf1, pdf2) dated 04/02/2025 (Sustainable Community order) and 13/02/2025 (NIT Durgapur order) of the Patent Office issued in relation to wrongful obtainment in quick succession (Thanks

Moving Towards a ‘Wrongful Obtainment’ Standard Part – I Read More »

[Sponsored] CRISP (BITS Law School) Invites Applications for Innovation Law and Policy Fellowship (Extended Deadline 15 April 2025)

/ By / Opportunities, Sponsored

Centre for Research in Innovation Law for Shared Prosperity, BITS Law School is inviting applications for their Innovation Law and Policy Fellowship. The last day to send your applications is April 15 April 1, 2025. For more details see their call for applications below. CRISP (BITS Law School) Invites Applications for Innovation Law and Policy Fellowship (Extended Deadline 15 April 2025) BITS Law School (BITSLAW) has established a ‘Centre for Research in Innovation Law for Shared Prosperity’ (or, CRISP) in the BITS Pilani

[Sponsored] CRISP (BITS Law School) Invites Applications for Innovation Law and Policy Fellowship (Extended Deadline 15 April 2025) Read More »

https://imgflip.com/i/9mband

Madras High Court and the (Mis-Placed) Judicial Economy: Analysing the Clouds Behind the Silver Lining

/ By / Patent

While sometimes less may be more, this is certainly not always the case. Madras High Court (MadHC)’s recent judgement is one example of this. A Single Bench of the MadHC, headed by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, delivered an intriguing judgment on February 27, 2025, in Navya Network Inc. v. The Controller of Patents & Designs (pdf). The case involved an appeal against the order dated March 13, 2023, which had dismissed Patent Application No. 951/CHENP/2013, which the MadHC upheld, however, by

Madras High Court and the (Mis-Placed) Judicial Economy: Analysing the Clouds Behind the Silver Lining Read More »

ANI vs OpenAI: Why Delhi High Court Has Jurisdiction 

/ By / Copyright, Others

In my previous post, I stated that the question of jurisdiction could play spoilsport to the entire ANI v. Open AI case. After doing some research and some introspection, it became clear to me that the issue of jurisdiction (one of the four issues framed by the Court) was the most straightforward issue of the lot. The TLDR version to the question is that Delhi HC has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This post will now explain why that is

ANI vs OpenAI: Why Delhi High Court Has Jurisdiction  Read More »

  WIPO PCT-MADRID ROVING SEMINARS 2025

/ By / Courses & Workshops, Others, Patent, Trademark

The Indian Patent Office, along with WIPO, is organising Roving Seminars at six different locations as part of WIPO’s efforts to promote awareness with regard to protecting intellectual property and innovations globally through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and the Madrid System. It is part of WIPO’s project to bridge gaps in the IP ecosystem and reach out to women entrepreneurs, youth, Indigenous and migrant communities and SMEs, including small traditional producers. The Patent Office has partnered with industry associations

  WIPO PCT-MADRID ROVING SEMINARS 2025 Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 24 – March 2)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Keep up with the ever changing world of IP with SpicyIP’s Weekly Review! A quick glance at last week – analysis of a Delhi HC judgment on the patentability of genetically modified salmonella bacteria, a look at the Philips DVD Case where the Court imposed heavy damages and costs, and a post-grant opposition leading to a revocation of Optimus’ Linelizoid patent. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 24 – March 2) Read More »

Amazon Owns Your E-Books and Wants More

/ By / Copyright

In light of Amazon’s decision to disable the ‘Download or Transfer via USB’ feature from their Kindle devices, Arnav Kaman discusses DRMs/TPMs, the rights of the user, what users can do with their ebooks within the fair use doctrine, and the future of ebooks in this guest post. Arnav is a 3rd Year Law student from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. He’s interested in Narratives and the Law, along with supporting local independent bookstores.  Amazon Owns Your E-Books

Amazon Owns Your E-Books and Wants More Read More »

The Philips DVD SEP Case: Looking at the DHC’s Decision on Foreign Applications and Damages

/ By / Patent

In an interesting development for SEP watchers, the Delhi High Court (DHC) passed a common judgement (Philips v. Maj. (Retd) Sukesh Behl) in three cases concerning allegations of infringement of a Standard Essential Patent relating to Philip’s DVD player technology. Filed in 2012, the decision comes after 13 years with the litigation having outlived not only the suit patent, and the DVD industry, but also the institution that declared it essential!! Interestingly this becomes the second full judgement on a

The Philips DVD SEP Case: Looking at the DHC’s Decision on Foreign Applications and Damages Read More »

Scroll to Top