Photo of Gitika Suri

Gitika Suri

Director-Patents in the Intellectual Property Practice of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Gitika has almost fifteen years of experience in Intellectual Property (IP) matters, particularly, patents. Gitika advices on patent transactions & commercialisation, prosecution, oppositions, infringement and other contentious matters. Over the years, Gitika has been involved in prestigious patent strategy, tie-ups, Patent/IP mergers and acquisitions, and various commercial transactions involving IP. She can be reached at gitika.suri@cyrilshroff.com

India’s Intellectual Property Ecosystem: A Record-Breaking Year Insights From The Annual Report 2024–25 Published By The Patent Office

Insights from the Annual Report 2024–25 published by the Patent Office

Summary: India’s intellectual property ecosystem achieved a record-breaking year in FY 2024-25, with total filings surging nearly 20% across patents, trademarks, designs, GIs, and copyrights. This growth signals rising confidence in domestic innovation and the effectiveness of modernisation initiatives like digitisation and AI integration. For readers, the report highlights India’s evolving IP landscape, offering insights into opportunities, challenges, and the country’s strengthening global position in intellectual property protection.Continue Reading India’s Intellectual Property Ecosystem: A Record-Breaking Year Insights From The Annual Report 2024–25 Published By The Patent Office

Decoding Patent Infringement: Essential Elements, Equivalents, and Estoppel in Crystal Crop Protection v. Safex Chemicals

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.[1] offers insights into determining patent infringement, focusing on the essentiality of claimed elements, the application of the Doctrine of Equivalents, and the implications of Prosecution History Estoppel. The judgment highlights the importance of claim construction, and the binding nature of representations made during patent prosecution.Continue Reading Decoding Patent Infringement: Essential Elements, Equivalents, and Estoppel in Crystal Crop Protection v. Safex Chemicals

Weather “CROMPTON PEBBLE” and “PEBBLE” are similar or identical?

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited’s (Crompton) appeal has been dismissed, upholding the order that restrains Crompton from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in electric irons under the impugned “PEBBLE” trademark, due to V Guard Industries Limited’s (V Guard) application.Continue Reading Whether “CROMPTON PEBBLE” and “PEBBLE” are similar or identical?

Reject patent application on merit, not for failing to follow procedure: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, on February 24, 2025, passed an order in Arcturus Therapeutics v. Controller of Patents[1], remanding the case back to the patent office for reconsideration by the Assistant Controller of Patents on merit.Continue Reading Reject patent application on merit, not for failing to follow procedure: Delhi High Court

Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions 2025

Introduction

  • Computer Related Inventions (“CRIs”) comprise of inventions involving the use of computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus and techniques related thereto and include inventions having one or more features that are realised wholly or partially by means of a computer hardware/ software. To foster uniformity and consistency in examining applications with respect to CRIs, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks released “Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (“CRIs”), 2017” (“2017 Guidelines”), which dealt with the various provisions to be considered by the patent office while dealing with patent applications related to CRIs.

Continue Reading Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions 2025

A Legal Analysis of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr.: Patent Enforcement and Infringement Liability

Introduction

The case of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. is a landmark judgment in Indian patent law, particularly concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and intellectual property enforcement. This judgment resolves three interconnected suits filed by the Plaintiff Philips relating to the infringement of Indian Patent No. 218255, which pertains to a “Method of Converting Information Words to a Modulated Signal”.Continue Reading A Legal Analysis of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr.: Patent Enforcement and Infringement Liability

Proceedings seeking revocation of a Patent not same as those seeking a finding of Invalidity

In  its recent judgment dated January 15, 2025, in C.O. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 38/2022 Macleod Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs The Controller of Patents and Anr., the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) tackled some rather tricky but interesting questions, which have surfaced time and again in heavily contested patent infringement and invalidation proceedings in recent years, particularly in the pharmaceutical space.Continue Reading Proceedings seeking revocation of a Patent not same as those seeking a finding of Invalidity

Inventions addressing transaction security patentable under Indian Patents Act

In a recent judgement, the Delhi High Court, while hearing an appeal against an order of the Controller of Patents and Designs, which refused a patent grant, distinguished between a technical method and a business method while examining the technical contributions/ effects of an invention. In the impugned order, the Controller refused a patent application titled “Methods and Devices for Authentication of an Electronic Payment Card using Electronic Token” on the grounds that the claimed invention falls under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act (“Act”), categorising it as a business method and a computer programme, per se.Continue Reading Inventions addressing transaction security patentable under Indian Patents Act