Photo of Nityesh Dadhich

Nityesh Dadhich

Subscribe to Nityesh Dadhich's Posts

Associate in the Intellectual Property Practice at the Noida Office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Nityesh advises on trademark and patent disputes. He can be reached at nityesh.dadhich@cyrilshroff.com

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

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

Summary of Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, has pursuant to the authority vested by Section 159[1] of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”), issued the Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024, to amend the Patents Rules, 2003. These amendments are aimed at ushering in a uniform adjudication process, empowering the Adjudicating Officer to enhance precision, efficiency and implementation of the Act.Continue Reading Summary of Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024

INTERPRETING ‘DIAGNOSTIC’ UNDER SECTION 3(I) OF THE PATENTS ACT

Section 3(i) of the Indian Patents Act makes patent ineligible “any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment of human beings or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products”. Two recent Madras High Court decisions, in respect of  two separate appeals filed by the same Appellant, Chinese University of Hong Kong [CMA (PT) No. 14 of 2023 and CMA(PT) No. 1 of 2023] have deliberated upon the scope of “diagnostic” under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. In both the cases, the Court, held that the word “diagnostic” in Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, should be construed, to consider processes that uncover pathology for the treatment of human beings, as being patent ineligible.Continue Reading Interpreting ‘Diagnostic’ under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act

         

  

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