Intellepedia | Page 12 of 295

Regents’ Patent on Live Salmonella Vaccine Fails to Meet Disclosure Requirements, Court Rules

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the Controller of Patents' decision to reject an appeal filed by the Regents of the University of California (hereafter...

Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld an appeal filed by BTS Research International Pty Ltd (“BTS”) challenging the rejection by the Assistant...

From Algorithms To AI: Patentability Under The 2025 CRI Draft Guidelines

The 2025 Draft CRI Guidelines issued by the Indian Patent Office refine the criteria for patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), emphasizing technical effect, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, and proper claim drafting for AI, blockchain, and emerging technologies.

ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro upheld

The Delhi High Court upheld ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro, restraining the company from using the trademark ‘POWRNYM.’ The Court ruled that the mark was deceptively similar to ITC’s ‘NIMYLE’ and ‘JOR-POWR,’ violating trademark rights. The judgment emphasized that contractual obligations and trade dress similarities must be strictly adhered to in trademark disputes.

Patentability vs. Procedure: Finding the Right Balance during patent examinations

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Arcturus Therapeutics, overturning the Controller’s rejection of its patent application on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance should not override substantive examination, directing the Patent Office to reassess the application on its merits.

Madras High Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Suit, Allows Coexistence of Technologies

The Madras High Court ruled on a patent infringement dispute involving Arumugam Rajendra Babu and Ashok Leyland over battery-swapping technology. The Court found no infringement and dismissed both the suit and counterclaims, allowing both parties to coexist. The ruling addressed prior art, novelty, and the scope of patent protection in the electric vehicle sector.

The Battle for Respect continues: Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial

The Delhi High Court addressed the appeals in the Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial trademark dispute. The case involved phonetic similarity, consumer confusion, and corporate branding rights. The Court maintained the status quo, requiring disclaimers in advertisements and setting a final hearing for April 2025.

CGPDTM Headquarters Relocated to New Delhi: Official Notification

Headquartes of Indian Patent office relocated to Delhi

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has announced the relocation of the CGPDTM headquarters to New Delhi, as per the Gazette of India notification dated February 25, 2025. The new office is now operational at Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Dwarka, New Delhi. This move aims to enhance coordination with central regulatory bodies and improve India’s intellectual property administration.

Amazon Ordered to Pay ₹336 Crore in Damages for Willful Trademark Infringement

The Delhi High Court has ordered Amazon Technologies, Inc. to pay ₹336 crore in damages for willful trademark infringement of the Beverly Hills Polo Club logo. The ruling also includes ₹3.23 crore in litigation costs and a permanent injunction against Amazon. The case, filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B.V., highlights Amazon’s liability in unauthorized brand usage.

Thomson Reuters vs ROSS Intelligence : Does training AI models amount to fair use?

The US District Court for Delaware ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, finding that ROSS Intelligence infringed Westlaw’s copyrights by using its headnotes and editorial content for AI training. The Court rejected ROSS’s fair use defense, emphasizing market harm and the need for AI developers to license copyrighted materials. While granting partial summary judgment to Thomson Reuters, the Court left certain copyright expiration claims for jury determination. This decision reinforces copyright protections in legal research and sets a precedent for AI-related copyright disputes.