Intellectual Property

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

In Starpharma Pvt Ltd v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [Mad HC, (T) CMA (PT) No.22 of 2023, Decided: 12th October 2023], the Madras HC adjudicated on issues relating to Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act 1970.  Section 57[1] allows amendment of applications, any specifications and any document subject to Section 59[2] of the Act. Section 59 states the following for amendment of an application for a patent or the complete specification or any document relating thereto:Continue Reading Madras High Court allows amendment of “method of treatment” claims to product claims

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

Division Bench altering the interpretation of Section 16 of the Indian Patents Act

The order of the Division Bench (DB) of the Delhi high Court in Syngenta Ltd v Controller of Patents and Designs brought an overdue clarity on the interpretation of Section 16[1] of the Indian Patents Act, dealing with divisional patent applications.Continue Reading Division Bench altering the interpretation of Section 16 of the Indian Patents Act

‘Appropriate office,’ not location of ‘hearing officer’, dictates patent appeal jurisdiction

Justice Hari Shanker of the Delhi High Court held that the jurisdiction for appeals under Section 117A of the Patents Act has to be determined by the location of the ‘appropriate office’ as provided by Rule 4[1] of the Patent Rules.Continue Reading ‘Appropriate office,’ not location of ‘hearing officer’, dictates patent appeal jurisdiction

Evaluating principles in use of trademark as keyword and intermediary liability

Introduction

The division bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court recently agreed with the findings of the single judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Google LLC Vs. DRS Logistics and held that Google cannot escape liability in case of trademark infringement by an AdWord, by claiming benefit of safe harbour provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000.Continue Reading Evaluating principles in use of trademark as keyword and intermediary liability

Patent Licensing in times of Covid-19 Pandemic

The entire world has been grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic for some time now, and efforts are on to find a treatment protocol and vaccine. Several drugs and treatment therapies are being tried and tested to find a cure for this pandemic. In the middle of this fervent R&D activity, some questions come to mind — what about IP protection? How would companies commercialise a cure — if and when it is finally found? How would the cure be available to the public en-masse at affordable prices? Enter patent law and the aspect of Licencing.
Continue Reading To Protect or Not to Protect that is the Question : Patent Licensing in times of Covid-19 Pandemic

COGNIZABILITY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DEBATE IS BACK

The question of whether the offence of copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957 (the “Copyright Act”) is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence, has long been debated and addressed varyingly by different High Courts over the years. Recently, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court (“Rajasthan HC”) in the case of Nathu Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan[1] had the occasion to consider this question once again, and in doing so, opted to refer the same to a larger bench for settling the issue, thereby bringing this debate to the fore once again. This article shall analyse relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudential developments in order to understand how courts have dealt with the issue.
Continue Reading COGNIZABILITY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DEBATE IS BACK!

LEGAL PROTECTION OF SOFTWARE IN INDIA

Introduction

As businesses strive to shift from paper to digital, there is an increasing penetration of software products across industries. This is particularly true in India. The NASSCOM Report evinces that the software products market was the fastest-growing segment amongst all IT services in India in FY2019.[1] While the making of software requires a considerable amount of human, technical, and financial resources; it can be copied within seconds, at infinitesimal cost. Thus, there is a need to protect software with the strongest available intellectual property protections. In India, the intellectual property regime provides a number of tools to protect such innovations. These include, patents and copyright. Each of these tools have their own set of peculiarities and will be discussed vis-à-vis protection of software, within the framework of cross-jurisdictional analysis.
Continue Reading Grooming the Law with Technology: Legal Protection of Software in India