Search Copyright

Listen to this post
‘Technical Breach’ not a contravention of Section 39 of the Patents Act?

In Selfdot Technologies (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, [order dated November 28, 2023],the Madras High Court has adjudicated on Section 39 and 40 of the Indian Patents Act and held that the breach committed by the appellant was a technical breach and cannot be considered a contravention of Section 39 of the Patents Act, 1970, and hence cannot trigger deemed abandonment under Section 40.

Continue Reading ‘Technical Breach’ not a contravention of Section 39 of the Patents Act?
Listen to this post
Court interprets “known substance” in respect of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act

In an important decision, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, discussed Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.[1] The case involved a patent application no. 7096/CHENP/2015, which claimed priority from the US application number 61/815,502 dated 24 April 2013. The patent application claimed two polymorphic forms—A and B—of a compound RTA-408. Compound RTA-048 was claimed and granted in the Indian Patent Application No. 8486/DELNP/2014.[2] The patent application 7096/CHENP/2015 was refused essentially on the grounds of being not patentable under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act.

Continue Reading Court interprets “known substance” in respect of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act
Listen to this post
Summary of the Draft Trade Marks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024

The Draft Trade Marks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024, introduced by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, represent a strategic modification to the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. This regulatory endeavor is conducted under the delegated powers provided for in Section 157[1] of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Act”). These rules create a unified adjudication process which is carefully planned to ensure consistency. This effectively streamlines the Act’s execution by strengthening the Adjudicating Officer’s capabilities. The aim of this comprehensive approach is to optimise and refine the adjudicative framework, thereby fostering a more robust and coherent administration of trademark-related matters.

Continue Reading Summary of the Draft Trade Marks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024
Listen to this post
Cause of action for a Writ Petition in Patent Suit stands independent of “Appropriate Patent Office” Determination under Patent Rules

In University Health Network v. Adiuvo Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.[1], Madras High Court has held that it shall have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ ‘irrespective of the location of the appropriate patent office’[2], which was Delhi. At the time of filing of a patent application, “appropriate office” for that application is ordinarily frozen, i.e. decided based on the place of residence or domicile or business of the applicant(s); or where the invention originated; or based on the address of service of the applicant in India, in case of a foreign applicant.[3] Section 2(1)(r) and 74 of the Patents Act 1970 (“the Act”), Rule 4 of Patent Rules 2003 (“Patent Rules”), and Clause 3.02 of Patents Manual indicate the immense significance of ‘appropriate office’ in the process of prosecution and grant of patent application in India. For instance, all proceedings are conducted from the appropriate office, all communications related to the proceedings are addressed to the concerned appropriate office, among others.

Continue Reading Cause of action for a Writ Petition in Patent Suit stands independent of “Appropriate Patent Office” Determination under Patent Rules

         

  

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) can generate and manipulate our ideas and thinking by creating human-like content via non-human intelligence.[1] These software(s) such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT/ GPT-4, Google’s BARD, inter alia, are initially trained on a large data sets and computing power. After the training, they are capable of self-enhancement to generate unique and personalised content.[2] This has posed novel questions before the copyright experts, as content generation, previously reliant on human inputs, has moved beyond that realm. Now, instead of answers based on user queries – as obtained via Google’s search engine – customized personal content is delivered to the user. Creation of this new content through GenAI has led to concerns on copyright infringement, privacy violation, libel and defamation, etc. Copyright infringement is particularly worrisome as the companies are using the user-generated data to train these software(s), which includes the data generated by minors, amplifying their vulnerability. Questions arise regarding the extent to which the companies can claim ‘fair-use’ exception of the Copyright Act? This article attempts to bring some clarity over these issues. It incorporates two landmark US cases against OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Alphabet Inc., respectively[3], and their implications in India, including the India’s recently-passed Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Continue Reading Guardians of Genius: Securing Tomorrow’s Generative AI via Copyright Protection
Listen to this post
The Price For The Sound Of Music: Impact Of The 2012 Amendment On Royalties

The ownership of derivative works has been hotly contested by authors, composers and lyricists (collectively, “authors”) on the one end of the bargaining spectrum; and producers, music labels and broadcasters on the other. This tussle has raised certain rudimentary questions – first, will the author’s copyright in the underlying work continue to subsist after its incorporation in the final (derivative) work; and second, will authors continue to receive royalty for utilisation of their work as part of such final work. These questions turn the focus on whether the 2012 Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Act”) “fundamentally changed” the treatment of authors’ rights with respect to original, underlying works created by them.

Continue Reading The Price For The Sound Of Music: Impact Of The 2012 Amendment On Royalties