Patent

An Alternative to Delhi HC’s Approach on Confidentiality Clubs in InterDigital-Xiaomi SEP Dispute

by
4 Comments

We’re pleased to bring to you a guest post by Abhilasha Nautiyal, analysing the recent Delhi High Court decision on confidentiality clubs in InterDigital v. Xiaomi (also discussed by Nikhil and Anupriya earlier here, here and here) and proposing an alternative to it. Abhilasha is an attorney at Ira Law, a firm that she co-founded with other colleagues. Prior to this, she was a partner at an IP law firm. She graduated from the Army Institute of Law and then…


Read More »
Copyright Design Patent Trademark

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 25 – 31)

by
Leave a Comment

Topical Highlight The Delhi High Court Judgement in the IPRS Case (2021) In this post, Adarsh Ramanujan analyses the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in IPRS v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. The judgment has been appealed, and the Division Bench has issued notice in the matter, with the interim direction that the judgment from the Single Judge will not be treated as a precedent in other proceedings. Adarsh points to the Court’s finding that IPRS took self-contradictory legal positions in the two suits considered in the…


Read More »
Opportunities Publication

Call for Papers: NLU Jodhpur’s Journal of Intellectual Property Studies Vol. 4, Issue 2 [Submit by March 21]

by
Leave a Comment

We’re pleased to announce that NLU Jodhpur’s Journal of Intellectual Property Studies (JIPS) is inviting original, unpublished manuscripts for publication in the Summer 2021 Issue (Volume IV, Issue II) of the Journal. The last date for submissions is March 21, 2021. For further details, please read the journal’s call for papers below: Call for Papers: NLU Jodhpur’s Journal of Intellectual Property Studies [Vol. IV, Issue II] The Board of Editors of the Journal of Intellectual Property Studies [JIPS], published under the…


Read More »
Copyright

The Delhi High Court Judgement in the IPRS Case (2021)

by
Leave a Comment

This blog carried a piece on the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in IPRS v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. last week. As pointed out there, the judgement distinguishes between cases where underlying works (lyrics/musical composition) are used in the context of the broadcast of sound recordings versus other situations (e.g. live performances). In the latter case, the Court held that an injunction could be sought by authors/composers (or by the Copyright Society representing their interests) but not in the former…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising Copyright Geographical Indication Patent

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (January 11-24)

by
Leave a Comment

Topical Highlight Delhi HC Order Cripples Authors’ Royalty Rights in Underlying Works I critiqued the Delhi High Court’s order in IPRS v. ENIL, which held that underlying works incorporated in sound recordings are not utilized and do not incur royalty when the sound recording is used. I briefly review how the 2012 Amendment was brought in to recognise authors of underlying works’ inalienable right to royalty. In this order, the court has accepted the argument that it is the producer…


Read More »
Patent

Delhi High Court Interprets ‘Export’ as ‘Use’ in India; Grants Interim Injunction to Lundbeck

by
10 Comments

The Delhi High Court passed an order last month in the matter of H Lundbeck A/S v. Hetro Drugs Ltd., whereby it ruled that “export of the products from India would amount to use of the product in India” under Section 107 of the Patents Act. While according this meaning to the term ‘export’, the court however, did not elucidate on the reasoning for its interpretation. The present post will discuss why the present ruling is inconsistent with the nature of…


Read More »
Opportunities Patent Sponsored

Patent Drafting Positions at Remfry & Sagar, Bengaluru & Gurgaon

by
Leave a Comment

We are pleased to inform you that Remfry & Sagar, one of India’s leading IP law firms, is looking to recruit two candidates for patent drafting for its Bengaluru and Gurgaon offices. For further details, please read the job description below: Patent Drafting Positions at Remfry & Sagar, Bengaluru & Gurgaon Remfry & Sagar, India’s premier intellectual property law firm, with over 275 personnel, is expanding its operations and looking to recruit 2 candidates for patent drafting. Strong technical knowledge, with…


Read More »
Copyright

Delhi HC Order Cripples Authors’ Royalty Rights in Underlying Works

by
7 Comments

A shocking order delivered by the Delhi HC on 4th January in IPRS v. ENIL and PPL v. CRI Events, only days after the landmark radio royalty statutory license order, has held that underlying works incorporated in sound recordings are not utilized and do not incur royalty when the sound recording is used! The order goes on to interpret the 2012 Amendment in a manner that almost completely extinguishes the rights of authors of underlying works. Underlying Works and Royalty…


Read More »
Copyright

IPAB’s First Statutory License Order Overhauls Radio Royalty System

by
2 Comments

On 31st December 2020, an IPAB bench consisting of the Chairman Manmohan Singh J. and two technical members Surya Senthil and SP Chockalingam, delivered a grand statutory license order for radio broadcasts under Section 31D of the Copyright Act. We had previously blogged about the Public Notice issued by IPAB seeking suggestions from stakeholders for the fixation of these rates. The notice came in the wake of the expiry of the erstwhile Copyright Board’s compulsory license order (CB order) under Section…


Read More »
Biological Diversity Copyright Geographical Indication Others Patent Trademark

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 4 – 10)

by
Leave a Comment

Topical Highlight Issues in Sci-Hub Case ‘A Matter of Public Importance’ In this post, Swaraj highlighted some issues that came up during the hearing of the recent litigation, involving Elsevier, Wiley, and ACS suing Sci-Hub and LibGen for copyright infringement. He observed that it was a positive step for Justice Midha of the Delhi High Court to repeatedly point out that case was ‘a matter of public importance’, and he would not want to pass any orders without hearing the various…


Read More »
  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5
  8. 6
  9. 7
  10. 8
  11. 9
  12. 10
  13. 11
  14. ...
  15. 576