Latest Articles on Indian IP
-
Landmark Indian IP Case Laws Every Founder Should Know
A few Indian court decisions shaped how patents and trademarks are understood today. Here are landmark IP cases and their practical lessons.
-
When “Efficacy” Left the Pharmacy: Syngenta and Section 3(d) Beyond Medicines
Since Novartis, Section 3(d) ‘efficacy’ meant therapeutic efficacy. In Syngenta v. Controller, the Delhi High Court freed the test from the pharmacy — for an agrochemical, staying stable in the spray tank can be enhancement of efficacy.
-
Better Late Than Never? Post-Filing Efficacy Data Gets a Hearing in Daewoong
A Section 3(d) refusal turned on missing efficacy data, not a missing effect. The Delhi High Court let Daewoong file that data on appeal and sent the case back — a notable counterpoint to the ‘prove it at filing’ orthodoxy.
-
No Surprises at the Finish Line: Section 10(4)(c) Objections Belong at Examination
The Patent Office cannot ambush an applicant with new clarity objections at the refusal stage. In Wirtgen v. Controller, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal that did exactly that — and reminded everyone that examination is a conversation, not a trap.
-
Examine the Claims That Are Alive: Harvard and the “Glaring Error” of Ignoring Amendments
Harvard amended its claims from a composition to the cells themselves — then the Controller refused on the old claims. The Delhi High Court called ignoring the live claims a ‘glaring error’ and sent it back.
-
Money Matters Too: Economic Significance and the Obviousness Shortcut in Novozymes
Inventive step in India can rest on economic significance, not just technical advance. In Novozymes, the Madras High Court faulted the Patent Office for ignoring that limb — and for conclusory findings under Sections 3(d) and 3(f).
-
Bad Advice, Good Cause: Condoning Delay and the Prejudice Test in Jain Irrigation
Jain Irrigation missed the deadline to appeal the dismissal of its revocation counter-claim on incorrect legal advice. The Delhi High Court condoned the delay on a prejudice test — and charged Rs 1,00,000 for the trouble.
-
Reasons Are the Heartbeat: The Atomic-Energy Bar Still Needs a Speaking Order
A nickel-alloy boiler patent was refused because the DAE said it ‘relates to atomic energy’ — with no reasons. The Bombay High Court set that aside: even an absolute bar must be applied through a speaking order.
-
Moving the Goalposts: Navya Network, Section 3(k) and the New Ground That Sank a Refusal
The hearing notice said ‘computer program’; the refusal said ‘non-technical algorithm’. The Bombay High Court called that a new ground, faulted the missing five-step test, and sent the Section 3(k) refusal back.
-
More Is Not Synergy: Crystal Crop, Section 3(e) and the Halosulfuron–Metribuzin Mix
A herbicide combining halosulfuron-methyl and metribuzin claimed synergy. The Delhi High Court found only a higher dose — and held the claim barred by Section 3(e), while allowing the opponent fresh prior art on appeal.