Latest Articles on Indian IP
-
Two Months to Expiry: Novo Nordisk, Semaglutide and the Doctrinal Map of Section 64(1)
With the Semaglutide patent two months from expiry, a Delhi High Court Division Bench refused to intervene — and used the occasion to draw a careful doctrinal map of Sections 64(1)(a), (e) and (f), and the ‘person in the know’.
-
No Role, No Liability: Dabico, Order I Rule 10 and the Passive Investor
A passive investor was dragged into a patent infringement suit because it allegedly controlled a co-defendant. The Delhi High Court deleted it: no role in the infringing acts means neither a necessary nor a proper party.
-
India’s GUIs Get Their Day: Calcutta High Court Brings Screen Designs Into the Fold
After years of administrative resistance, the Calcutta High Court has held that graphical user interfaces are registrable designs — a landmark that finally aligns India with the 90%+ of jurisdictions protecting screen designs.
-
Flipkart’s Opposition Doesn’t Add Up: Madras HC, Section 3(k) and the Voicemonk Virtual Agent
Flipkart’s post-grant opposition to Voicemonk’s virtual-agent patent went the distance and lost. The Madras High Court upheld the Controller across novelty, inventive step and the Section 3(k) software exclusion.
-
Can You Kill a Dead Patent? The Division Bench Says Yes — Retrospectively
Boehringer argued you cannot revoke an expired patent — like flogging a dead horse. A Delhi High Court Division Bench disagreed: revocation under Section 64 survives expiry and erases the patent from the start.
-
You Can’t Have It Both Ways: Yangtze Memory, Unity of Invention and the Divisional That Came Too Late
Yangtze Memory defended the unity of its claims, won grant — then tried to file a divisional five days later. The Delhi High Court said no: having had it one way, you cannot now have it the other.
-
A Second Life: Orissa High Court’s Liberal Take on Restoring a Lapsed Patent
A patent lapsed because the agent didn’t pay the renewal fee — and the 18-month restoration window closed before anyone noticed. The Orissa High Court, taking a liberal view, let the patentee try to bring it back.
-
No Way Out: When Withdrawing a Patent Suit (With Strings) Backfires
A plaintiff tried to withdraw a process-patent suit — but keep the right to sue again. The Delhi High Court refused, held a process patent is not a monopoly over a raw material, and imposed costs.
-
Grounds Not Pressed Are Grounds Lost: Mold-Tek, Claim Mapping and the Discipline of Written Submissions
A written statement bristling with invalidity grounds means nothing if you don’t actually argue them. The Delhi High Court drew a sharp line between pleading a ground and pressing it — with claim mapping the price of entry.
-
Two Tracks, One Order: Calcutta HC Won’t Let Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition Collapse Into Each Other
Can the Controller dispose of examination and a pre-grant opposition in one undivided order? The Calcutta High Court says no: the two tracks are independent, and collapsing them denies the applicant a fair hearing.