Nippon v. Controller: DHC Sets the Standard for What Constitutes “Proof of Right”

Recently, in Nippon v. Controller, the Delhi High Court intervened to rein in an unduly rigid view of proof of right adopted by the Patent Office. Explaining the judgement, Dipti examines how the Court dealt with proof of right, employer–employee ownership, and the premature invocation of Section 68, and what these moves mean for patent filing practice in India. Dipti is a penultimate-year student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, with a strong interest in technology and intellectual property law. […]

Nippon v. Controller: DHC Sets the Standard for What Constitutes “Proof of Right” Read More »

The Unresolved Code: Anand Khosla, Arbitrability, and the Ghost of Rights in Rem

In Anand Khosla v. Punam Kumari Singh, the Bombay High Court quietly retreats from the Supreme Court’s settled position on the arbitrability of IP disputes. Analysing the decision, Aditya Bhargava argues that it misapplies the rights in rem/personam distinction while considering the arbitrability of IP disputes under Vidya Drolia, and improperly legitimises the splitting of causes of action. Aditya is a fourth year law student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. [Long post ahead] The Unresolved Code: Anand

The Unresolved Code: Anand Khosla, Arbitrability, and the Ghost of Rights in Rem Read More »

InPASS New Feature Update: Download Final Granted Patent Specifications with Ease! 

Patent professionals and researchers would know the pain of correctly identifying the final granted claims for an invention. Previously, one had to examine the written submissions and the amendments made by the applicant, along with the controller’s order, to identify the final granted claims post-examination. One can only imagine how difficult the same exercise would be for someone unfamiliar with Patent Office procedures and patent law in general.  To address this pain point and improve legibility of patent documents, the

InPASS New Feature Update: Download Final Granted Patent Specifications with Ease!  Read More »

Online Symposium on the Book “IP Debates in South Asia” (17th Jan)

In one of the first works of its kind, a recent publication edited by the wonderful Dr Pratyush Nath Upreti (Queens University, Belfast), brought together a number of IP scholars to examine the IP developments and debates that have taken place in South Asia. As Prof Gangjee notes in the forward, “a central aim of this book is to document current initiatives and imagine future possibilities for creating more equitable and inclusive intellectual property regimes across the regime”. He emphasises

Online Symposium on the Book “IP Debates in South Asia” (17th Jan) Read More »

[Tidbit] Will Azure Hospitality Saga Impact the PPL-Passcode Litigation?

Image from here. The story of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and its tryst with the Copyright Society framework continues. Readers will recall that in April 2025, a division bench (DB) of the Delhi HC in Azure v PPL had held that PPL cannot issue or grant licences for sound recordings without registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society (Interested folks can refer to my detailed post for the ruling’s analysis). In its directions,

[Tidbit] Will Azure Hospitality Saga Impact the PPL-Passcode Litigation? Read More »

One Chance or Two? Madras HC Bars LPAs in Patent Disputes, Deepening High Court Parity

How many chances do you really get to appeal a rejected patent application? Recent High Court decisions on the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals suggest that the answer may depend less on law and more on geography. Taking a look at the conflicting High Court rulings on Letters Patent Appeals, Hruthika Addlagatta explains how the conflicting opinions have turned appellate access into a jurisdiction-dependent question, raising serious concerns of equality and fairness. Hruthika is a second-year law student from NALSAR

One Chance or Two? Madras HC Bars LPAs in Patent Disputes, Deepening High Court Parity Read More »

Natural Justice Without Participation? Patent Examination, Civil Consequences, and the Zydus Judgment

The Delhi High Court in Zydus v. Controller of Patents has reaffirmed a formal separation between patent examination and pre-grant opposition, characterising examination as a self-contained, non-adversarial process. While this approach emphasises procedural efficiency, it raises deeper questions about how natural justice operates once a pre-grant opposition is on record. Arshiya Gupta and Reyansh Khandelwal critically examine whether the Court’s insistence on formalism comes at the cost of substantive fairness in patent prosecution. Arshiya is a third-year law student at

Natural Justice Without Participation? Patent Examination, Civil Consequences, and the Zydus Judgment Read More »

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (12.01.2026)

Welcome back to another week of Bells & Whistles! As always, we’ve rounded up a mix of developments, opportunities, and thoughtful reads from across the IP world along with a Bell of the Week that’s well worth revisiting. Bell of the Week: Sarai’s FLOSS Initiative This week’s Bell doesn’t just chime, it opens up access. We’re spotlighting the FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source Software) work of the Sarai Programme, an early and influential effort to make free software meaningful and usable

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (12.01.2026) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 5 – January 11)

More on the DPIIT Working Paper on AI and Copyright – a post on lawful access while ignoring copyright law and a two-part post arguing that Copyright law is ill-suited to address labour displacement caused by GenAI! A post critically examining the DHC’s sweeping judgement on Domain Names. 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 DPIIT Working Report: Lawful

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 5 – January 11) Read More »

DPIIT Working Report: Lawful Access while ignoring Copyright Law

When I was reading the DPIIT working paper on AI & Copyright, my mind instantly went back to Bartz v Anthropic. To be specific, I recalled the following lines from the judgement- “The downloaded pirated copies used to build a central library were not justified by a fair use.” As Ed Lee explained here, Bartz did not consider it relevant whether the pirated copies would be used for transformative use. The fact that a central library was built using pirated books disqualified Anthropic from using fair use as a defence.

DPIIT Working Report: Lawful Access while ignoring Copyright Law Read More »

Scroll to Top