intellectual property

Subscribe to intellectual property via RSS

The digital age has revolutionized news consumption and public discourse, with online platforms becoming hubs for critiquing current events and sharing diverse perspectives, often by using short excerpts (“clips”) from existing news broadcasts and other copyrighted material. This practice, while fostering a dynamic information ecosystem, lies at the intersection of copyright protection and freedom of expression. A recent dispute between a major news agency and online commentators has brought India’s “fair dealing” doctrine to the forefront, questioning its application in the digital realm. This article examines fair dealing under Indian copyright law, focusing on short clips in news reporting and online commentary, supported by judicial precedents, and offers suggestions for navigating copyright issues.Continue Reading Fair Dealing in the Digital Age: Navigating Copyright for News and Online Content in India

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?

Royally Challenged or Legally Sound? Examining Trademark Law through RCB v. Uber India

In the vibrant world of cricket, a sport intricately linked to the country’s cultural tapestry, fan banter — whether between individuals or Corporates — is not merely accepted; it is cherished. Yet, there lies a fine line between good-natured ribbing and the realms of trademark infringement or disparagement. When does humorous exchange tip over into the perilous territory of legal breach? This very question was at the heart of a recent Delhi High Court case, Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India Systems Private Limited & Ors., which saw the popular IPL franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) clashing off-field with ride-hailing giant Uber India.[1]Continue Reading Royally Challenged or Legally Sound? Examining Trademark Law through RCB v. Uber India

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

‘Fair Use’ in the Age of AI

The advent of large language models (“LLMs”) such as OpenAI’s GPT and Google’s Gemini has revolutionised how content is created, consumed, and commercialised. These generative AI systems, trained on massive volumes of publicly available data, can now generate human-like expressions at unprecedented pace and scale. While such technological advances are to be welcomed for their potential to enhance human capacity and to contribute to the progress of knowledge, they also raise fundamental yet profound questions about the extent to which the law is equipped to regulate such an foreseeable development.Continue Reading ‘Fair Use’ in the Age of AI

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

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