Browse the archive
This comprehensive roundup covers critical Indian IP law developments in July 2026, including landmark AI copyright rulings, trademark disputes, and patent updates.
The Delhi High Court clarifies mandatory reasoning for patent refusals in Array Biopharma, curbing arbitrary use of Section 3(d) and 3(i) by the Indian Patent Office.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Intra-Cellular Therapies regarding a patent for deuterated psychiatric drug compounds. The court reaffirmed that a broad genus claim in earlier patents precludes novelty for specific species, even if not explicitly named. Furthermore, the judgment clarifies that evidence of improved bioavailability does not automatically satisfy the enhanced therapeutic efficacy requirement under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. This decision serves as a crucial warning to pharmaceutical innovators that pharmacokinetic data alone is insufficient to support patent claims without proven clinical improvements in therapeutic outcomes.
This week's IP digest covers crucial Indian judicial developments, including the Delhi High Court's ruling on the Godfather trademark case, confirming that registered marks remain enforceable despite non-use. We explore critical patent insights from Shaafi Naturcure, where post-filing evidence was rejected, and Fraunhofer’s failed biomass patent. The digest also reviews high-stakes copyright battles, trademark rectification petitions involving 'Shakti', and the prestigious induction of Justice Prathiba M. Singh into the International IP Hall of Fame. Additionally, we analyze global IP trends, including US pharmaceutical patent disputes and CJEU platform liability rulings concerning algorithmic content curation.
This week's IP law digest covers critical developments in Indian jurisprudence. The Bombay High Court affirmed territorial restrictions for media brands, while the Delhi High Court clarified the limits of contempt jurisdiction regarding keyword ads on Google. We also explore significant rulings on patent examination, comparative advertising, and personality rights, including Preity Zinta's move against AI deepfakes. Internationally, the US Supreme Court's decision on skinny labels and new patent rulings from the UPC and China highlight the evolving landscape of global intellectual property enforcement and strategic brand protection.
Can the Indian Patent Office use a court-ordered remand as an excuse to restart an entire patent examination? The Bombay High Court's ruling in Qualyst Transporter Solutions LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents clarifies that a remand for a breach of natural justice does not grant the Patent Office a blank check. We analyze why the court restricted the Controller from introducing new prior art or fresh objections, ensuring that procedural corrections focus on existing records. This decision sets a vital precedent for limiting re-examination scope after remand.
