Latest Articles on Indian IP
-
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.
-
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.