[Part I] AI in the Patent Office: Can Human Oversight Neutralise AI’s Influence on Patent Examination?

/ By / Patent

The CGPDTM issued new guidelines on August 7, this time to regulate AI use in the patent examination process. In a 16-page document followed by annexures of illustrative examples and a checklist for the officers, the Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures seek to maintain a balance between harnessing the benefits of using AI tools in patent examination while ensuring that their use does not compromise the technical, statutory, and quasi-judicial functions of the Office. 

[Part I] AI in the Patent Office: Can Human Oversight Neutralise AI’s Influence on Patent Examination? Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Others, Patent, Trademark

After an action-packed week, we have posts remembering one of the most remarkable IP administrators– Mr. P. H Kurian, on the appointment of an amicus in the Vivek Oberoi personality rights case, and on the DHC decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents. This and much more in the last Weekly Review of the month. Anything that we are missing out? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian

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

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents highlights a basic but important point: patent objections must be tied to the claims and evidence, not merely asserted. Harsh Kashyap explains how the Court applied this principle to objections on inventive step, Section 3(d), and Section 3(i), while also flagging the questions the judgment leaves unresolved. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller Read More »

Image of Mr. P H Kurian in a peach coloured shirt

Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian (1959-2026)

/ By / Others

It is with great sorrow that we share that the Indian IP fraternity lost one of its most remarkable administrators, Mr. P. H. Kurian, yesterday after a battle with cancer. A 1986-batch IAS officer, Mr. Kurian donned various hats throughout his illustrious career, as District Collector, Labour Commissioner, Managing Director of the Kerala State Industries Development Corporation (KSIDC), Principal Secretary to the Department of Industry, Kerala, Additional Chief Secretary to the Kerala Government, and Chairman of the Kerala Real Estate

Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian (1959-2026) Read More »

Adventures of Controller: Citing CGK suo motu in Post-Grant Opposition

/ By / Patent

A recent Bombay High Court decision adds an important procedural dimension to the growing judicial scrutiny of how Controllers assess obviousness. Maneesha Gupta explains how in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the problem was not the absence of evidence for common general knowledge, but the Controller’s reliance on evidence that was never disclosed to the Opposition Board or the patentee before revoking the patent. Maneesha is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NMIMS School of

Adventures of Controller: Citing CGK suo motu in Post-Grant Opposition Read More »

Black-and-white logo of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), featuring a map of India with a spinning wheel at the centre, surrounded by Hindi text and the initials “KVIC,” with a Sanskrit motto below.

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences

/ By / Trademark

When a court finds that its interim injunction has been wilfully breached, should punishment necessarily follow? Harsh Kashyap explores this in light of the Bombay High Court decision in KVIC v. Jaishukh N. Bhuta, explaining how the Court draws an important distinction between establishing disobedience and deciding its consequences, clarifying that Order XXXIX Rule 2A is primarily meant to secure compliance rather than punish past conduct. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. What Follows a Breach?

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit – Court’s Friend or Counsel for the Absent Party: Analyzing Delhi Court’s Appointment of Amicus for Vivek Oberoi

/ By / Others

The Delhi High Court’s decision to appoint an amicus curiae to represent Vivek Oberoi’s perspective after his counsel withdrew raises an unusual procedural question in a civil suit pertaining to the right of publicity. This tidbit by Vishwas Kumar Tripathi examines whether such an appointment fits within the established role of an amicus curiae, or risks creating a safety net for plaintiffs who stop actively participating in their own cases. Vishwas is a 4th law student pursuing his B.A. LL.B.

SpicyIP Tidbit – Court’s Friend or Counsel for the Absent Party: Analyzing Delhi Court’s Appointment of Amicus for Vivek Oberoi Read More »

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (24.08.2026)

/ By / Courses & Workshops, Opportunities

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: When Copyright Meets AI – ANI v. OpenAI Some bells mark the beginning of a new chapter. This one may just be the beginning of India’s AI copyright jurisprudence.  This week’s bell goes to ANI Media v. OpenAI, one

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (24.08.2026) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 17-August 23)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Starting the week with our weekly roundup of key IP developments and posts on Mavyret patent abandonment, calls for comments on new patent and trademark manuals, and the DHC’s decision in Intra Cellular Therapies v. Controller. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know below. Highlights of the Week Mavyret Patent Abandonment Does Not Open the Field for Hepatitis C Generics Does one patent

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 17-August 23) Read More »

Mavyret Patent Abandonment Does Not Open the Field for Hepatitis C Generics

/ By / Drug Regulation, Patent

July 28, 2026 marked eight years of the National Viral Hepatitis Control Program (NVHCP). Launched under the National Health Mission, the program aims to eliminate Hepatitis C from India by 2030 through free testing and access to generic versions of direct acting-antivirals (DAAs). One of the most effective drugs for curing patients of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) currently in the market is AbbVie’s Mavyret. It is recognised as the first and only DAA approved to treat both acute and chronic

Mavyret Patent Abandonment Does Not Open the Field for Hepatitis C Generics Read More »

Scroll to Top