On July 1, 2025, in Kroll Information Assurance, LLC v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Ors.1, the Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of a patent application under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, reaffirming that a mere sequence of instructions or abstract profiling logic is insufficient for patent […]
Introduction How Delay and Non-Use Undid Conqueror’s Claims Against Xiaomi The Delhi High Court’s decision in Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited1 [1] offers a meticulous exploration of patent infringement claims and the high threshold required for interim relief in Indian patent litigation. Justice Amit Bansal’s judgment, pronounced on […]
Introduction A major patent battle [1] has erupted in India between pharmaceutical giants Novo Nordisk and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories over the popular weight loss and diabetes drug semaglutide. Novo Nordisk sued Dr. Reddy’s for manufacturing and exporting its patented drug without consent. This case is significant for the Indian pharmaceutical industry, as its outcome will […]
Introduction On 15th March 2024, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) published the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024. Notably, Rules 137 and 138—relating to the Controller’s powers to condone procedural irregularities and extend deadlines were significantly amended. These changes clarify which specific irregularities can now be condoned by the Controller and which deadlines are eligible for extension. […]
Introduction On May 27, 2025, in Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs1, the Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of divisional patent, affirming that minor structural modifications of known pharmaceutical compounds—especially intermediates—must still demonstrate enhanced therapeutic efficacy to be patentable under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The […]
Introduction On March 25, 2025, the Delhi High Court denied the request of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG for an interim injunction against Natco Pharma in a high-stakes pharmaceutical patent dispute in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. vs Natco Pharma Limited [1]1. At issue was Roche’s species patent on “Risdiplam,” a life-saving drug for Spinal […]
Delhi High Court Reins in Patent Claim Amendments: AbbVie’s Attempt to Convert Method Claims Rejected Introduction In a recent judgment in Abbvie Biotherapeutics INC & ANR. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [1]1, the Delhi High Court upheld the patent refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents for Indian patent application No. 201817047767, […]
Introduction This article is the final part of our multi-blog series on analyzing the Draft Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, 2025. Part 1 discusses the new definitions and terms introduced in the Guidelines, Part 2 discusses the judgments referred to in the Guidelines, Part 3 discusses the novelty and inventive step sections and Part 4 discusses […]
Introduction This article is part 4 of our multi-blog series on analyzing the Draft Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, 2025. Part 1 discusses the new definitions and terms introduced in the Guidelines, Part 2 discusses the judgments referred to in the Guidelines, and Part 3 discusses the novelty and inventive step sections. On March 25, 2025, […]
Introduction Sufficiency of disclosure is a core requirement in patent law, ensuring that an invention is described in a manner that allows a person skilled in the art to perform it. In return for the limited monopoly granted by a patent, the inventor must disclose the invention clearly, enabling public use once the patent expires. […]