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

Summary:  In Array BioPharma Inc. v Deputy Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court set aside the Controller’s refusal of Array BioPharma’s combination patent application and remanded it for fresh consideration.  The Court held that the Controller had wrongly applied Section 3(d) to a combination of independent active agents, and incorrectly treated a product claim as a method-of-treatment claim. The ruling reinforces that combination patent claims must be assessed on proper inventive-step reasoning tied to the closest prior art and that Section 3(d) does not bar combinations of distinct, independently active pharmaceutical (or agrochemical) agents, giving innovators a stronger footing in defending multi-component combination inventions in India.

Continue Reading Significant Ruling on Combination Patents: Delhi High Court Highlights Inventive Step and Patentability Criteria
ANI v. Open AI: Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction in Landmark AI Copyright Dispute

Summary: The Delhi High Court has refused ANI Media’s interim injunction application against OpenAI holding on a prima facie basis that the scraping and storage of copyrighted content to train LLMs constitutes fair dealing under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The ruling, India’s first major judicial decision on AI training and copyright, signals a broad pro-AI path, though substantive questions remain open for trial.

Continue Reading ANI v. Open AI: Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction in Landmark AI Copyright Dispute
Decoding Delhi High Court’s Ruling: The inter-relationship of injunctive relief and patent validity challenges

The Delhi High Court decided an important case on patent law in Novo Nordisk A/S v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. The dispute involved Semaglutide, a widely used drug for diabetes and obesity. It addressed an important issue: can a patentee/ Plaintiff obtain an injunction if the Defendant, with knowledge of the Plaintiff’s patent rights, proceeds with production/ manufacturing of the patented drug,without first initiating revocation or non-infringement proceedings. Notably, the Delhi High Court declined to release the Defendant from its undertaking of not selling the patented drug in India as it had begun manufacturing/ production without “clearing the way”, despite being fully aware of the suit patent. The Court, however, allowed the Defendant to export to jurisdictions where the Plaintiff holds no patent rights. The judgment serves as an important precedent in determining the inter-relationship between injunctive relief and patent validity challenges.

Continue Reading Decoding Delhi High Court’s Ruling: The inter-relationship of injunctive relief and patent validity challenges
Reforming Patentability in Nuclear Technology: Unpacking the Amendment to Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970

Summary: The article examines the recent amendment to Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970, which now permits limited patenting of nuclear energy inventions for peaceful uses, subject to stringent safeguards under the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025. While this liberalises innovation in nuclear technology, there are certain carve outs for sensitive areas. Ultimately, the objective will be to understand the positives as well as the continuing hurdles post this change.

Continue Reading Reforming Patentability in Nuclear Technology: Unpacking the Amendment to Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970
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