Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Inventorship of AI Technologies (DABUS): Submissions of the Opponent

In Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor of a food container invention. The Opponent challenges that position by arguing that Indian patent law recognises only human inventors, and that an AI system cannot furnish the inventorship, entitlement, or proof of right needed to sustain a patent application.

Inventorship of DABUS in India: Can an AI System Be the True and First Inventor?

In the case of Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler sought a patent for a food container invention and named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor. That choice led to objections on whether an AI system can be recognised as an inventor in India, whether rights can flow from such inventorship, and whether the same issue could be raised through a pre grant opposition.

Seeing Red: Calcutta High Court Upholds Exide’s Trade Dress Injunction Against Amaron

Red and green automotive batteries facing each other divided by a sharp line — illustrating the trade dress passing off dispute between Exide and Amaron at the Calcutta High Court.

Can a battery brand spend years telling consumers that red means Exide, and then quietly launch its own red product line? The Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench says no, upholding Exide’s interim injunction against Amaron maker Amara Raja in a significant trade dress passing off ruling.

No Euphoria for Pirates: Copyright infringement injunction against rogue websites

Banner with a purple neon city skyline, a judge’s gavel on the left, a hooded figure using a phone on the right, and the headline “NO EUPHORIA FOR PIRATES.”

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of HBO, to protect Euphoria from online piracy ahead of its India release. The court noted that rogue websites could cause immediate commercial harm and directed blocking measures against the identified websites.

Isha and Sadhguru: Jurisdiction and Defamation in the Age of Online Content

In the case of Isha Foundation v. Google LLC & Ors., a charitable trust and its founder, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, challenged online videos and articles that allegedly harmed their reputation. The dispute involved jurisdiction, authorization, limitation, and interim restraint on publication. The court also considered the balance between free speech and the right to reputation.

Voicemonk Patent Prevails Over Flipkart: Innovation vs Opposition

Voicemonk Patent prevails over Flipkart in a key patent dispute, clarifying novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(k) under Indian patent law

Can Non-Use of a Trademark Fuel a Passing Off Claim? Delhi High Court Says No

An old glass syrup bottle coated in dust and cobwebs, resting on a worn wooden shelf, its peeling label stamped with a bold red "Registered" mark - symbolising a trademark left unused and forgotten

The Delhi High Court dismissed Sana Herbals’ appeal for an interim injunction against Mohsin Dehlvi and Dehlvi Remedies, holding that prior user of the NOKUF trademark by the respondents, even if followed by decades of non-use, defeats a passing off claim where goodwill never preceded the defendant’s adoption of the mark.

Patent Opposition Board Report: Can you challenge it before the final order?

A close-up of a formal legal document stamped in red with the word "PRELIMINARY," resting on a dark wooden desk. The document shows sections headed "Findings of Fact," "Conclusions of Law," and "Recommendation," with a blank date line at the bottom. A gavel is partially visible in the upper right corner.

When is a patent opposition board recommendation ripe for a writ petition, and when is it simply too soon? The Madras High Court tackled this question in a dispute between E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC and Zydus Healthcare Limited over a cancer-treatment patent, with significant implications for patent opposition board recommendation practice in India.

Breaking Beams, Breaking Records: Delhi High Court Awards ₹152 Crore in Antenna Patent Infringement Suit Against Rosenberger

Featured image for blog post on patent infringement damages in India - illustration of a cellular antenna tower contrasting symmetrical and asymmetrical beam patterns, representing Indian Patent No. 240893 upheld by the Delhi High Court in the landmark CCA v Rosenberger ruling awarding ₹152 crore in damages.

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Indian Patent No. 240893 for asymmetrical beam antenna technology in Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH, rejecting all revocation grounds. The court awarded ₹152 crore in patent infringement damages – could this signal a new era for patent enforcement in India?

Fair Hearing First: Delhi HC Sets Aside Patent Refusal Over New Grounds in Order

A blue wooden background with the words “drilling holes into patent refusals?” in black text, alongside an orange power drill angled toward the text.

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a Wirtgen GMBH patent application, finding that new objections introduced for the first time in the final order – without prior notice – violated the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.