CGPDTM Invites Feedback on IP Administration in the Country

/ By / Copyright, Design, Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark

In a welcome move, the office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has invited feedback on IP administration in the country by CGPDTM, and the Copyright and GI Registries. For this, the Office has released a 6 page questionnaire on April 15 and has kept April 22 11:59 PM as the deadline to share the responses to this questionnaire. The questionnaire specifies that the feedback will be kept confidential and only the aggregate data from the survey […]

CGPDTM Invites Feedback on IP Administration in the Country Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (8 April- 14 April)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Plant Variety Protection, Trademark

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on the India- EFTA TEPA, AP High Court’s curious findings on fair use, and Delhi High Court’s order imposing INR 1 lakh as damages on Google for failing to disclose information about their corresponding foreign applications. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and

SpicyIP Weekly Review (8 April- 14 April) Read More »

Training GenAI: Infringement or Fair Use?

/ By / Copyright

Discussing the implications of unauthorized use of materials for training Generative AI models, we are pleased to bring to you this guest post by Goutham Rajeev and Vedant Bharadwaj Singh. The authors are third year students at the Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur. Training GenAI: Infringement or Fair Use? By Goutham Rajeev and Vedant Bharadwaj Singh A recent public response by OpenAI’s CTO (Chief Technical Officer) on the data sources used by them to train their new text-to-video AI engine

Training GenAI: Infringement or Fair Use? Read More »

Looking for the Reasons in the Delhi High Court’s FRAND Determination in the Ericsson- Lava SEP Case- Part I

/ By / Patent

This post is co-authored with Swaraj Paul Barooah. After the Delhi High Court dictated its decision in the long standing SEP dispute between Ericsson and Lava on March 28, 2024, the Court finally published the judgement on April 3, 2024. Penned by Justice Amit Bansal, this mammoth judgement runs for 476 pages (!) and deals with numerous issues like determining validity of the eight suit patents (revoking one), and infringement analysis in SEP cases. Unfortunately, despite the numerous pages, it

Looking for the Reasons in the Delhi High Court’s FRAND Determination in the Ericsson- Lava SEP Case- Part I Read More »

A meme with a picture of Robert Downey Junior depicted as patent office asking '"How was I supposed to know"

Google LLC v. Controller of Patents: Foreign Disclosure requirement and Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024 

/ By / Patent

In Google LLC v. Controller of Patents, the court was hearing an appeal against the refusal to grant a patent on grounds of ‘lack of inventive step’, ‘lack of novelty’ and lack of ‘technical effect’ u/s. 3(k). In this post, I will not focus on the merits of the case. Rather, I will focus on the part relating to foreign application disclosure, discussed in Para 53-55. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh upon the Appellant for failing to

Google LLC v. Controller of Patents: Foreign Disclosure requirement and Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024  Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbits – Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction Rejected, Madras High Court Revokes Omega Ecotech’s Patent, and Delhi High Court Upholds IPO’s Patent Rejection

/ By / Patent

Refuse: (1) to vacate an interim injunction, (2) to remand back to the patent office, and (3) to continue allowance of a patent grant! In the last few days, the Madras and Delhi High Courts have passed a few significant orders on these topics. Let’s take a look at these three orders in this quick tidbit. DHC Rejects Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction  In a detailed order passed on January 9, 2023, the Delhi High Court had granted

SpicyIP Tidbits – Natco’s Request to Vacate Ceritinib Interim Injunction Rejected, Madras High Court Revokes Omega Ecotech’s Patent, and Delhi High Court Upholds IPO’s Patent Rejection Read More »

Section 24(5) of the Plant Varieties Act Revived?

/ By / Plant Variety Protection

[This post is authored by SpicyIP Intern Vishno Sudheendra. Vishno is a second year law student at the NLSIU, Bangalore. His previous post can be accessed here.] On 22nd February 2024, the Delhi High Court, in UPL Limited v. Registrar & Anr. (“UPL judgment”), made observations that prima facie revived Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (“PV Act”). Some readers may know this section has had a recently troubled past. In 2016, a Division

Section 24(5) of the Plant Varieties Act Revived? Read More »

A banner of 'Telugu Akademi' with its name written in English and Telugu

Is Every ‘Educational Use’ a ‘Fair Use’? Looking at the AP HC’s Curious Decision on Textbooks and Copyright

/ By / Copyright, Publication

In Addala Sitamahalakshmi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that no copyright vests in mathematical and science textbooks. It also observed that ‘educational use for the benefit of students and educational institutions’ is covered under ‘fair use’. I argue that the reasoning used to reach the above conclusions is both problematic and incomplete. The HC fails to take into account the relevant facts of the case in deciding the present case. In this post, I will

Is Every ‘Educational Use’ a ‘Fair Use’? Looking at the AP HC’s Curious Decision on Textbooks and Copyright Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 1- April 7)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

[This weekly review is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Vishno Sudheendra. Vishno is a second year law student at the NLSIU, Bangalore. His previous post can be accessed here. Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on the Delhi High Court’s decisions in Sulphur Mills v. Dharmaj Crop Guard and Kudos Pharma v. Natco. Along with this dont forget to read our review of SpicyIP posts published in the month of February, from 2005

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 1- April 7) Read More »

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System

/ By / Patent

Recently, India and a group of 4 European countries- Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland (EFTA) signed a Trade Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) on a variety of trade related issues, including intellectual property rights. Significantly, the agreement requires India to make substantive changes to its provision obligating a patent applicant to furnish information about their foreign applications corresponding to their application in India. While there are multiple provisions in the agreement dealing with issues like trademarks and GIs (indicatively see here),

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System Read More »

Scroll to Top