Photo of Swati Sharma

Swati Sharma

Subscribe to Swati Sharma's Posts

Partner in the Intellectual Property Practice at the Delhi –NCR Office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Swati Sharma heads the Intellectual property- Advisory, strategy & prosecution at the firm. Over the years, she has been involved in prestigious IP re-branding, brand adoption, IP strategy, tie-ups, IP mergers and acquisitions, IP disputes, business set up and commercial transactions involving IP for Fortune 100 clients. She can be reached at swati.sharma@cyrilshroff.com

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

Scope of Interrogatories in Patent Infringement Suits: The Delhi High Court Reiterates the “Necessity Test”

Introduction

Delay in adjudication is not new in India. Unnecessary delays through misuse of procedural complexities often tends to delay the dispensation of justice. Efficient adjudication and resolution of disputes are pivotal to any developed judicial system. These reinforce trust in the judicial set up of a country, thereby, facilitating effective commercial partnerships globally. In this backdrop, the Indian parliament enacted the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Act”), with the aim to provide a procedural framework that leads to expeditious resolution of commercial disputes. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act provides for an exhaustive definition of “commercial disputes”, which includes, among other things, disputes arising out of intellectual property rights (“IPR”) relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications, and semiconductor-integrated circuits. Thus, IPR disputes are commercial disputes [1].Continue Reading Scope of Interrogatories in Patent Infringement Suits: The Delhi High Court Reiterates the “Necessity Test”

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

The Calcutta High Court has established its Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPRD) and Intellectual Property Rights Appellate Division (IPRAD), marking an advancement in Intellectual Property law. This development, marked by a gazette notification dated September 20, 2024, which notified the Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2023, adds Calcutta High Court to the list of those (Delhi, Madras and Himachal Pradesh) already engaged in implementing specialised regulations for Intellectual Property (IP) matters in India.Continue Reading Calcutta Joins the Ranks: Addition of another IP Division in India’s Legal Landscape

In a recent judgement dated November 28, 2024, the Madras High Court while hearing an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”), quashed an impugned order that the Controller of Patents and Designs (“Controller”) had passed, on grounds of non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice.Continue Reading Is it acceptable to file divisional application on the day of grant of parent application?

Procedural Fairness and Service Errors: Lessons from the Coaster Shoes Trademark Dispute

In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court recently addressed crucial issues surrounding trademark opposition proceedings in Coaster Shoes Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr vide a judgment dated August 16, 2024. The Court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the responsibility of the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Registrar”) to ensure completeness of service in trademark disputes.Continue Reading Procedural Fairness and Service Errors: Lessons from the Coaster Shoes Trademark Dispute

Invention that is a series of instructions does not meet the criteria for patent protection under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a BlackBerry Limited (hereinafter “Appellant”) appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patent’s refusal of its patent application in the field of wireless communication titled “Administration of Wireless Systems[1]”. The application was for an invention that manages wireless systems by configuring wireless client devices using both primary and secondary wireless servers. The ld. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejected the application on the ground of non-patentability under Section 3(k) [2], stating that the subject patent application was directed towards set of instructions and which were purely functional and lacking any inventive hardware features. Continue Reading Invention that is a series of instructions does not meet the criteria for patent protection under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act

Reptilian showdown in Court

In a landmark decision that concluded a protracted legal saga, the Delhi High Court (“Court”) has recently resolved a 23-year dispute between two global fashion titans – Lacoste S.A. (“Plaintiff”) and Crocodile International Pte Ltd (“Defendant”). The Court issued a permanent injunction against the Hong Kong-based Crocodile International, prohibiting the use of the Crocodile trademark, which was found to infringe upon the iconic trademark of the French luxury sportswear brand, Lacoste.Continue Reading Reptilian showdown in Court