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

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

Background

In Mahesh Gupta v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court affirmed the refusal order issued by Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (“Respondent”) against a patent application filed for “Portable Vehicle Management System”(“Subject Patent”). The Respondent refused the patent application on the grounds that it did not meet the inventive step requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970, and failed to qualify as an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act.Continue Reading Portable Vehicle Management System Denied Patent

Introduction

Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970, states that a method related to agriculture and horticulture falls under inventions not patentable. The purpose of Section 3(h) of the Act is to protect “conventional” practices followed by farmers, and to safeguard traditional farming, cultivation and breeding practices within the public domain, preventing exclusive rights and monopolies through granting of patents. Section 3(h) has survived through amendments and has remained an essential part of the Patents Act, highlighting the importance of the Section.Continue Reading Section 3(h): Method of Agriculture and Jurisprudence