Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Ericsson vs Lava addresses sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act. The Court found Ericsson’s patents to be sufficiently disclosed, rejecting Lava’s revocation claims.

Lights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADY

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against KSC Industries, restraining them from using the EVERYDAY mark, which was found similar to Eveready’s well-known EVEREADY trademarks. The Court considered visual, structural, and phonetic similarities and recognised the potential for consumer confusion.

Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds

The Delhi High Court has reiterated the need for transparency in patent refusal orders, stating that clear grounds must be provided. The judgment highlights the importance of detailed reasoning and independent assessment of each claim in patent applications.

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX

The Delhi High Court’s analysis in Ericsson vs. Lava addresses the novelty and inventive step of key standard essential patents for 3G and EDGE technology. This post summarises the court’s findings on the technical advancements and legal standards applied in evaluating Ericsson’s patents, maintaining a clear and factual legal perspective.

Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part A) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part VIII

This article provides a detailed analysis of the novelty and inventive step of Ericsson’s AMR patents as examined in Ericsson Vs. Lava. The Delhi High Court’s findings illustrate how Indian patent law standards are applied to complex telecommunication inventions.

The 20-Year Patent Term from the Date of Filing is Constitutionally Valid

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the 20-year patent term from the date of filing under Section 53 of the Patents Act. The judgment clarifies the legislative scheme and confirms there is no inconsistency or arbitrariness in the provision.

A Deep Dive into Section 3(k) Analysis of Ericsson’s Eight Patents – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part VII

The Delhi High Court analysed the validity of eight Ericsson patents under Section 3(k), following Lava’s challenge. Except for the first patent, the Court upheld the remaining patents, finding them to involve technical advancements beyond mere algorithms or mathematical methods.

Premier Injunction for the Premier League : Viacom18 knocks out IPL Pirates with Dynamic+ Injunction

The Delhi High Court granted Viacom18 a dynamic+ injunction to proactively block rogue websites infringing IPL media rights. This order strengthens copyright protection by enabling real-time enforcement against illegal streaming during live events.

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court held that Section 3c of the Patents Act, 1970 does not exclude engineered non-living substances from patent protection. The ruling clarifies the distinction between discovery and invention for biotechnology patents in India.

Kannada Lyricist Hamsalekha Wins Copyright Case Against Saavn

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of Hamsalekha, confirming that authors retain moral rights and the ability to seek name credit, even after assigning rights to IPRS. The Court clarified that such disputes are not necessarily commercial in nature under Indian copyright law.