A meme with a picture of Robert Downey Junior depicted as patent office asking '"How was I supposed to know"

Google LLC v. Controller of Patents: Foreign Disclosure requirement and Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024 

/ By / Patent

In Google LLC v. Controller of Patents, the court was hearing an appeal against the refusal to grant a patent on grounds of ‘lack of inventive step’, ‘lack of novelty’ and lack of ‘technical effect’ u/s. 3(k). In this post, I will not focus on the merits of the case. Rather, I will focus on the part relating to foreign application disclosure, discussed in Para 53-55. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh upon the Appellant for failing to […]

Google LLC v. Controller of Patents: Foreign Disclosure requirement and Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024  Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbits – Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction Rejected, Madras High Court Revokes Omega Ecotech’s Patent, and Delhi High Court Upholds IPO’s Patent Rejection

/ By / Patent

Refuse: (1) to vacate an interim injunction, (2) to remand back to the patent office, and (3) to continue allowance of a patent grant! In the last few days, the Madras and Delhi High Courts have passed a few significant orders on these topics. Let’s take a look at these three orders in this quick tidbit. DHC Rejects Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction  In a detailed order passed on January 9, 2023, the Delhi High Court had granted

SpicyIP Tidbits – Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction Rejected, Madras High Court Revokes Omega Ecotech’s Patent, and Delhi High Court Upholds IPO’s Patent Rejection Read More »

Section 24(5) of the Plant Varieties Act Revived?

/ By / Plant Variety Protection

[This post is authored by SpicyIP Intern Vishno Sudheendra. Vishno is a second year law student at the NLSIU, Bangalore. His previous post can be accessed here.] On 22nd February 2024, the Delhi High Court, in UPL Limited v. Registrar & Anr. (“UPL judgment”), made observations that prima facie revived Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (“PV Act”). Some readers may know this section has had a recently troubled past. In 2016, a Division

Section 24(5) of the Plant Varieties Act Revived? Read More »

A banner of 'Telugu Akademi' with its name written in English and Telugu

Is Every ‘Educational Use’ a ‘Fair Use’? Looking at the AP HC’s Curious Decision on Textbooks and Copyright

/ By / Copyright, Publication

In Addala Sitamahalakshmi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that no copyright vests in mathematical and science textbooks. It also observed that ‘educational use for the benefit of students and educational institutions’ is covered under ‘fair use’. I argue that the reasoning used to reach the above conclusions is both problematic and incomplete. The HC fails to take into account the relevant facts of the case in deciding the present case. In this post, I will

Is Every ‘Educational Use’ a ‘Fair Use’? Looking at the AP HC’s Curious Decision on Textbooks and Copyright Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 1- April 7)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

[This weekly review is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Vishno Sudheendra. Vishno is a second year law student at the NLSIU, Bangalore. His previous post can be accessed here. Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on the Delhi High Court’s decisions in Sulphur Mills v. Dharmaj Crop Guard and Kudos Pharma v. Natco. Along with this dont forget to read our review of SpicyIP posts published in the month of February, from 2005

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 1- April 7) Read More »

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System

/ By / Patent

Recently, India and a group of 4 European countries- Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland (EFTA) signed a Trade Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) on a variety of trade related issues, including intellectual property rights. Significantly, the agreement requires India to make substantive changes to its provision obligating a patent applicant to furnish information about their foreign applications corresponding to their application in India. While there are multiple provisions in the agreement dealing with issues like trademarks and GIs (indicatively see here),

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System Read More »

Dissecting Contrasting Rulings: Examining Madras High Court’s Dual Pronouncements on Intervention in Post-Grant Opposition Proceedings

/ By / Patent

[This post is authored by SpicyIP intern Kevin Preji. Kevin is a second-year law student at NLSIU Bangalore. His passion lies in understanding the intersection of economics and public health with intellectual property rights. His previous posts can be accessed here.] Recently, the Madras High Court delivered two seemingly contradictory judgements (on the same day by the same judge!) regarding whether the High Court by way of judicial review under Article 226/227 could interfere with the recommendations of the Opposition Board

Dissecting Contrasting Rulings: Examining Madras High Court’s Dual Pronouncements on Intervention in Post-Grant Opposition Proceedings Read More »

Journey Through “Februarys” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)

/ By / Others

Hallo … this blogger is back with the “Sifting Through SpicyIP Pages” series! Apologies for the slight delay this time, but trust me, the wait will be worth it. This time, I was tasked to sift through the pages of “Februarys” on SpicyIP since 2005 and get you some stories that have kept us intrigued over the years. As we dive into the 9th installment of this series since June 2023, don’t forget to check the already sifted pages of

Journey Through “Februarys” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present) Read More »

Who’s Looking at the Quality of Decisions Granting Patents? Some Concerns from the Man Truck v. Asst. Controller Case

/ By / Patent

[This post is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Aarav Gupta. Aarav is a third-year law student at National Law University, Delhi. He is passionate about geopolitics, foreign policy, international trade, and intellectual property and spends his time reading and watching sports. His previous post can be accessed here. The authors would like to acknowledge an anonymous reader for sharing this development with us.]  Over the course of the last 2 years, we have seen High Courts remand numerous orders (read: reject)

Who’s Looking at the Quality of Decisions Granting Patents? Some Concerns from the Man Truck v. Asst. Controller Case Read More »

DHC’s Concerning Order in Kudos Pharmaceuticals v. Natco Pharma: Will it lead to Evergreening? 

/ By / Innovation, Patent

Recently, a Single judge bench of the Delhi High Court, in Kudos Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., granted an interim injunction in favour of Kudos Pharmaceuticals, restraining the defendants (Natco) from ‘manufacturing and selling, or in any manner, dealing with Olaparib, either under the brand name BRACANAT or under other brand name. In the present suit, Kudos, seeking a permanent injunction, argued that Natco was infringing the suit patent IN’ 720 (Claim 1 called ‘Olaparib’; species patent) by manufacturing and selling ‘its

DHC’s Concerning Order in Kudos Pharmaceuticals v. Natco Pharma: Will it lead to Evergreening?  Read More »

Scroll to Top