Gayatri

Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Indian Businessman in ‘ELFY’ Trademark Dispute with Pakistani National

by

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to an Indian businessman in a trademark dispute involving the mark ‘ELFY’ against Pakistani national Mohammed Younus Sheikh. The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and upholding fair business practices.

Background of the Case

The dispute centers around the use of the ‘ELFY’ trademark, which the Indian businessman claims to have developed and used in commerce for several years. Mohammed Younus Sheikh, a Pakistani national, had claimed that his company had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark for industrial adhesives since 1981. Sheikh’s company had registered the mark in Pakistan and asserted that it had acquired a transborder reputation, particularly in India.

The Indian businessman contended that he had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark in India since 1988 and had built a significant reputation and goodwill associated with the mark. He argued that Sheikh’s adoption of the same mark in India was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm his business interests.

Court’s Findings

The Delhi High Court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the dates of adoption and use of the ‘ELFY’ mark, marketing materials, and consumer testimonials. The court found that the Indian businessman had established prior use of the mark in India and had built a recognizable brand associated with ‘ELFY.’

In contrast, the court noted that Mohammed Younus Sheikh had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate prior use or registration of the ‘ELFY’ mark in India. The court emphasized the principle of territoriality in trademark law, asserting that the rights to a trademark are generally confined to the jurisdiction where the mark is used and recognized.

Legal Implications

This ruling reinforces the importance of establishing and maintaining clear records of trademark use and registration. It also highlights the challenges businesses may face when operating in international markets, where the risk of trademark disputes can arise due to similarities in branding.

Legal experts suggest that businesses should conduct thorough trademark searches before adopting new marks and consider registering their trademarks in key markets to protect their brand identity and prevent potential conflicts.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in trademark law and the need for businesses to be vigilant in protecting their intellectual property. As global commerce continues to expand, understanding and navigating trademark rights across different jurisdictions will be crucial for businesses seeking to safeguard their brands.

Anthropic Faces Legal Scrutiny Over AI-Fabricated Citation in Copyright Lawsuit

by
Anthropic, the AI company known for its chatbot Claude, is under legal scrutiny after an expert witness allegedly cited a fabricated academic article in a copyright infringement case. The lawsuit, filed by music publishers including Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO, accuses Anthropic of using copyrighted song lyrics without permission to train Claude.

The Alleged Fabrication
During a recent court hearing, Matt Oppenheim, representing the plaintiffs, claimed that Olivia Chen, an Anthropic data scientist, cited a non-existent academic paper to support arguments about how often Claude reproduces copyrighted lyrics. The article was allegedly generated by Anthropic’s AI and falsely attributed to a reputable journal. Judge mentioned the incident as a “serious issue” and demanded a prompt response from Anthropic. However, she denied an immediate deposition of Chen.

Anthropic’s Response
Anthropic acknowledged the citation error but suggested it might relate to a different, legitimate article. The company has not provided further details on how the AI-generated citation occurred or what measures are being taken to prevent such incidents in the future.

Broader Legal Implications
This development adds to the mounting legal challenges faced by Anthropic and other AI companies over the use of copyrighted materials in training data. In a separate lawsuit, authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson allege that Anthropic used pirated books, including their own works, to train Claude. The authors claim that Anthropic’s AI model profits from “strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity” behind their works.
Computerworld

The legal landscape is evolving as courts grapple with the intersection of AI technology and intellectual property rights. While AI companies argue that training models on existing content falls under “fair use,” copyright holders contend that their works are being exploited without permission or compensation.

Conclusion
The alleged AI-generated citation in the copyright lawsuit against Anthropic underscores the complexities and challenges of integrating AI into legal and creative domains. As the case progresses, it may set important precedents for how AI companies handle copyrighted materials and the ethical considerations surrounding AI-generated content.

Delhi High Court Affirms Mandatory Timelines Under Rule 100 of Trade Marks Rules 2017

by
In the ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that timelines are mandatory and cannot be waived, even in exceptional circumstances.

Background of the Case
The case arose from a trademark opposition filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. against Dabur India Ltd. Sun Pharma had submitted its evidence within the prescribed two-month period; however, there was a delay of three days in serving the evidence to Dabur. The Registrar of Trade Marks deemed the opposition abandoned due to this delay. Sun Pharma appealed the decision, arguing that the filing was timely, and the delay in service should not result in abandonment.

Court’s Analysis
The Delhi High Court examined the evolution of the Trade Marks Rules, noting that previous versions allowed for discretionary extensions of time. However, under the 2017 Rules, such discretion has been removed, indicating a legislative intent to enforce strict adherence to timelines. The Court referred to Rule 100, which specifies that evidence must be filed within two months from the date of service of the counter-statement.

Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a clear reminder to stakeholders in the trademark domain about the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines. With the removal of discretionary powers to extend deadlines, parties must exercise due diligence to comply with all procedural requirements within the stipulated timeframes.

Legal professionals and businesses are advised to stay informed about the implications of this judgment and ensure that all actions in trademark opposition proceedings are completed within the prescribed timelines to safeguard their interests.

Metro Brands Gets Interim Relief from Bombay High Court in Trademark Dispute with MetBrands

by

In a significant development in a closely watched intellectual property dispute, the Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to Metro Brands Ltd., a leading Indian footwear retailer, in its trademark infringement case against a startup operating under the name “MetBrands.”

On Monday, the court acknowledged Metro Brands’ longstanding presence in the Indian market and the strong consumer association with its brand name. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the matter, directed MetBrands to refrain from using the contested name or any deceptively similar mark until further orders.

Background of the Dispute

Metro Brands, incorporated in 1955, is a household name in Indian footwear retail with a wide footprint across premium malls and shopping destinations. The company claimed that MetBrands, a relatively new player in the fashion and lifestyle segment, was deliberately using a name strikingly similar to its own, thereby creating confusion in the minds of consumers and riding on the goodwill it has established over decades.

In its petition, Metro Brands argued that “MetBrands” not only shares phonetic and visual similarities but also overlaps in the domain of lifestyle and fashion retail, increasing the likelihood of trademark dilution and brand misappropriation.

Court’s Observations

The Bombay High Court, while hearing the interim plea, noted the potential harm to Metro Brands’ reputation and consumer trust due to the similarity between the two names. The court stated that prima facie, the use of “MetBrands” could amount to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Justice Pitale observed: “Given the longevity and recognition enjoyed by the plaintiff [Metro Brands] in the Indian market, and the phonetic resemblance of the defendant’s brand name, a case for interim injunction is clearly made out.”

Response from MetBrands

MetBrands, in its defense, claimed that the brand name was independently conceived and not intended to mislead consumers. The company also emphasized its limited operational scale compared to Metro Brands, suggesting there was no deliberate attempt to confuse or exploit.

Despite this, the court ruled in favor of granting temporary relief to Metro Brands, citing the need to prevent potential consumer deception and preserve brand integrity.

Legal and Industry Implications

Legal experts see the decision as a strong reinforcement of the importance of brand protection and the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding intellectual property rights. “This interim order sends a clear message to emerging businesses about the necessity of conducting thorough trademark checks and building brand identities distinct from existing market players,” said Renu Arora, a Mumbai-based IP attorney.

What’s Next

The matter is scheduled for further hearing in July 2025, when the court will examine the merits of the case in greater detail. Until then, MetBrands has been restrained from using the disputed mark in any commercial context, including advertising, packaging, and digital presence.

For now, the order comes as a strategic win for Metro Brands, reinforcing its hold over its brand identity while the legal proceedings continue.

Trina Solar Leads Global Perovskite Solar Cell Patent Rankings

by

Trina Solar, a global leader in photovoltaic (PV) technology, has emerged at the forefront of perovskite solar cell innovation, boasting a significant portfolio of patents in this cutting-edge field.  The company’s extensive research and development efforts have positioned it as a key player in advancing perovskite-based solar technologies.

Pioneering Perovskite Innovations

Since initiating research into perovskite and crystalline silicon tandem cell technology in 2014, Trina Solar has accumulated a substantial number of technological innovations.  These advancements underscore the company’s commitment to enhancing solar cell efficiency and performance through novel materials and structures. 

Robust Patent Portfolio

Trina Solar’s dedication to innovation is reflected in its impressive patent holdings.  The company has applied for over 5,000 patents worldwide, with more than 3,000 granted, including over 500 patents specifically related to TOPCon (Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact) cells and modules.   This extensive patent portfolio not only safeguards Trina’s technological advancements but also reinforces its leadership in the solar industry.

Strategic Legal Actions

To protect its intellectual property, Trina Solar has actively pursued legal measures against entities infringing upon its patented technologies. A lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Delaware and a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against Canadian Solar, Inc., alleging infringement of its TOPCon technology patents.   These actions underscore Trina’s commitment to defending its innovations and maintaining fair competition in the industry.

Global Impact and Future Outlook

Trina Solar’s advancements in perovskite solar cell technology have significant implications for the global renewable energy landscape.  By pushing the boundaries of solar cell efficiency and performance, the company contributes to the broader adoption of clean energy solutions worldwide.  As the demand for high-efficiency solar technologies continues to grow, Trina Solar’s pioneering work in perovskite solar cells positions it to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of sustainable energy.

*For more information on Trina Solar’s innovations and patent portfolio, visit www.trinasolar.com.*

IIIT-Bangalore Hosts Patent Workshop to Boost Academic Innovation

by

In a significant move to strengthen the intellectual property (IP) landscape within Karnataka’s academic institutions, the International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore (IIIT-B) organized a one-day workshop titled “Patent Proficiency for Academic Innovators.”  The event, held under the New Age Innovation Network (NAIN) 2.0 program, aimed to equip students, faculty, and innovators with practical knowledge on innovation. 

Empowering Academic Innovators

The workshop was conducted in collaboration with Startup Karnataka and the Department of IT, BT, Government of Karnataka.  Distinguished speakers included Nithin Chakki, KAS, General Manager of the Karnataka Innovation and Technology Society (KITS); Cmd. Sridhar, Registrar of IIIT-B; Prakash Balekundri, CEO of Unique Patent Solutions.  They emphasized the critical role of intellectual property rights (IPR) in translating academic research into market-ready solutions. 

The sessions provided attendees with insights into identifying patentable ideas, navigating the patent filing process, and enhancing the quality of patent applications.  Real-world case studies and expert guidance were integral to the workshop, offering participants a comprehensive understanding of the journey from research ideation to securing intellectual property. 

Extending Reach to Tier-2 Institutions

As an anchor institute for the NAIN 2.0 program, IIIT-B extended the workshop’s benefits to several affiliated institutions, including Jain (Deemed-to-be University), Bapuji Institute of Engineering & Technology in Davangere, Malnad College of Engineering, Mangalore Institute of Technology and Engineering, and St. Philomena College in Puttur.  This initiative reflects a growing commitment among Tier-2 city institutions to build robust IPR ecosystems and contribute to the state’s innovation goals. 

Fostering a Culture of Innovation

Dr. Lakshmi Jagannathan stressed the importance of guiding these innovators in protecting their work, commercializing it, and contributing meaningfully to the economy.  The workshop also focused on strengthening the capabilities of Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) within institutions, emphasizing their role in bridging the gap between innovative ideas and IP protection. 

About IIIT-Bangalore and Its Innovation Centre

The IIIT-B Innovation Centre serves as a dynamic hub for fostering innovation, entrepreneurship, and cutting-edge research.  As a not-for-profit Section 8 company hosted by IIIT-Bangalore, the centre offers state-of-the-art incubation facilities, advanced labs, and access to expert mentorship.  It supports projects across various domains, including artificial intelligence, data science, Internet of Things (IoT), and digital health.  Having supported over 100 startups, the centre plays a pivotal role in nurturing emerging talent and driving technological advancements, positioning itself as a key enabler of innovation and collaboration in India’s tech ecosystem. 

IIIT-Bangalore, Situated in the heart of Electronic City, Bangalore, it holds a prominent position in the academic landscape and is graded A+ by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). 

The successful execution of the “Patent Proficiency for Academic Innovators” workshop marks a significant step forward in Karnataka’s vision to cultivate a knowledge-led innovation economy, ensuring that academic discoveries translate into impactful, real-world solutions.

CarbonScape Awarded EU Patent, Poised to Transform EV Battery Supply Chain with Sustainable Biographite

by

In a major milestone for sustainable technology, New Zealand-based clean-tech company CarbonScape has been officially granted a European Union patent for its innovative biographite production process. The development is expected to dramatically reshape the electric vehicle (EV) battery supply chain by offering an eco-friendly alternative to traditional graphite—a key material in lithium-ion batteries.

The Challenge with Traditional Graphite

Graphite plays a critical role in EV batteries as the primary material used in anodes. However, the global supply of graphite has long been fraught with environmental and geopolitical challenges. Synthetic graphite, commonly used in high-performance batteries, is energy-intensive and derived from petroleum coke, resulting in high carbon emissions. Natural graphite, often sourced through mining, raises concerns about ecological degradation and unsustainable extraction practices.

CarbonScape’s Breakthrough: Biographite

This novel material serves as a carbon-negative substitute for synthetic and mined graphite, aligning with global efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of EVs.

Unlike traditional graphite production methods that require extreme heat of up to 3,000°C, CarbonScape’s process operates at significantly lower temperatures, around 1,500°C. Most notably, the production of biographite can actually remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it emits, making it a potentially revolutionary contributor to climate change mitigation.

EU Patent Strengthens Global Reach

With the newly issued EU patent, CarbonScape secures exclusive rights to its biographite technology in one of the world’s largest EV markets. The patent provides legal and commercial leverage as the company accelerates its plans to scale up production in Europe and beyond.

“It not only validates the uniqueness of our technology but also paves the way for localizing battery supply chains with a sustainable, homegrown solution.”

Localizing and Decarbonizing the Battery Supply Chain

One of CarbonScape’s major strategic advantages lies in its ability to decentralize production. By building smaller, localized plants near battery manufacturing hubs, the company can reduce transportation emissions and improve supply chain resilience.

According to internal estimates, producing biographite could avoid up to 30 tons of CO₂ emissions for every ton manufactured, compared to traditional graphite. As countries strive to meet ambitious net-zero goals, this kind of innovation could become indispensable.

Global Expansion and Strategic Partnerships

CarbonScape has already begun setting the groundwork for expansion. Commercial-scale production is projected to begin by 2029, with a goal of meeting at least 50% of the projected graphite demand for EV and grid-scale batteries by 2030.

These partnerships are expected to provide both financial support and industrial know-how needed to accelerate commercialization.

Sustainability at the Forefront

The move to biographite underscores a larger trend in the EV industry toward greener and more ethical sourcing of battery materials. As regulatory bodies in the EU and elsewhere implement stricter sustainability requirements, CarbonScape’s technology positions itself as a forward-looking solution ready for rapid adoption.

“With this patent, we’re not just protecting a technology—we’re setting a new standard for what sustainable battery materials should look like,” Williams emphasized.

Outlook

As the automotive world shifts gears toward zero-emission mobility, innovations like biographite could be the missing link in creating truly green batteries—from the source to the road.

If scaled effectively, CarbonScape’s approach could offer the EV industry a blueprint for sustainable growth—one that is not only more environmentally responsible but also more resilient to supply chain disruptions.

Nobel Prize Winners Convince Court to Revive CRISPR Patent Dispute

by

In a significant legal development with profound implications for the future of genetic engineering, a U.S. federal appeals court has agreed to revisit a high-stakes patent battle over CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology. This decision follows a petition spearheaded by Nobel Prize-winning scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, who are seeking to reclaim intellectual property rights over one of the most groundbreaking discoveries in modern biology.

The CRISPR Breakthrough

CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary tool that enables precise editing of DNA, has transformed the field of genetics since its development in the early 2010s. The technology allows scientists to alter genes with unprecedented ease and accuracy, offering promise in treating genetic diseases, improving crops, and even combating climate change. In 2020, Doudna and Charpentier were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their pioneering work on CRISPR.

A Complex Legal Landscape

The CRISPR patent battle has pitted the University of California, Berkeley—where Doudna conducted much of her research—against the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. In 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled in favor of the Broad Institute, recognizing its claim over the use of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells, including human cells.

UC Berkeley had earlier filed for the foundational CRISPR patent, but the Broad Institute’s expedited filing and specific focus on eukaryotic applications earned it a separate, and so far, legally upheld claim. The dispute centers on whether the Broad’s innovations were obvious extensions of the original CRISPR work or merited independent patent protection.

The Revival of the Case

In a rare move, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has agreed to review the previous ruling, citing newly presented arguments and scientific evidence by the UC Berkeley team and their legal representatives. Doudna and her colleagues argue that the Broad Institute’s patents should be invalidated on the grounds that the underlying concept of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells was an “obvious” step from their foundational research.

“The decision to revisit the case acknowledges the evolving understanding of CRISPR’s development and the need to fairly assign credit for its invention,” said a UC Berkeley spokesperson.

Legal analysts believe that the court’s decision could reshape the landscape of biotechnology patents. “This is not just about who owns CRISPR,” said Lisa Morgan, a biotech patent attorney in Washington. “It’s about how intellectual property is awarded in rapidly advancing scientific fields.”

Scientific and Commercial Stakes

The implications of the patent dispute are enormous. CRISPR-based therapies are currently in clinical trials for conditions such as sickle cell anemia, cancer, and blindness. With billions of dollars in potential revenue at stake, the ownership of key CRISPR patents determines who can license the technology and at what cost.

The legal battle has also sparked concern within the scientific community over how intellectual property law intersects with collaborative research and open science. Many researchers argue that patent disputes could stifle innovation and slow the development of life-saving treatments.

What’s Next?

The appeals court is expected to hear oral arguments later this year, with a decision anticipated in early 2026. Until then, the scientific community, biotech firms, and investors will be closely watching the proceedings.

As the legal saga unfolds, the core of the dispute remains a fundamental question about innovation in science: Who truly owns a discovery when multiple researchers contribute to a single transformative breakthrough?

Vedanta Aluminium Secures Patent for Breakthrough Graphite Recovery Technology on National Technology Day 2025

by

In a landmark achievement announced on National Technology Day 2025, Vedanta Aluminium, India’s largest aluminium producer, revealed that it has been granted a patent for a pioneering technology that enables the recovery of graphite with over 99% purity from aluminium production waste. This breakthrough positions the company—and the country—at the forefront of sustainable manufacturing and critical mineral independence.

Turning Waste into Strategic Wealth

Reflecting this year’s theme, ‘YANTRA – Yugantar for Advancing New Technology, Research & Acceleration’, Vedanta’s patented innovation transforms industrial waste into a high-value resource, exemplifying the ethos of circular economy and deep-tech advancement.

The technology recovers battery-grade graphite from two hazardous waste streams in aluminium production—Spent Pot Lining (SPL) and Shot Blast Dust. These materials, previously considered non-recoverable and environmentally challenging, are now being repurposed into a strategic asset critical for India’s clean energy future.

A Critical Boost for India’s Mineral Security

The graphite recovered through this technology exhibits exceptional electrical conductivity and robust structural properties, making it ideally suited for use in lithium-ion batteries. Its atomic structure supports efficient lithiation and de-lithiation cycles, which are essential for energy storage systems in electric vehicles, renewable energy integration, and consumer electronics.

The new technology has the potential to significantly reduce this dependency. As one of the top three graphite importers in the Asia-Pacific region—alongside South Korea and Japan—India now has an opportunity to become self-reliant in this critical mineral segment.

Driving Sustainable Innovation

The achievement is emblematic of a larger shift in Indian industry toward innovation-led sustainability. By unlocking new value from what was once waste, Vedanta Aluminium is setting a precedent for responsible industrial practices that support both economic growth and environmental stewardship.

The company’s graphite recovery initiative also contributes to global climate goals by enabling cleaner energy technologies while reducing the environmental burden of industrial waste. It represents a scalable, replicable model for circular economy integration in heavy industry.

Looking Ahead

As India accelerates its transition to a green and self-reliant economy, innovations like Vedanta’s graphite recovery technology will play a critical role in bridging the gap between sustainability and industrial competitiveness. The patent marks not just a technological breakthrough, but a strategic leap toward a cleaner, more resilient future for India.

Indian Pharma Stocks Tumble Amid Trump’s Drug Price Cut Order: Industry Braces for Patent Clampdown

by

In a significant development that sent shockwaves across global pharmaceutical markets, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at drastically reducing prescription drug prices in the United States. The move has triggered a sharp decline in Indian pharmaceutical stocks, raising concerns about the future of generic drug exports and the potential tightening of global patent regimes.

Trump Pushes for Global Price Parity

President Trump’s executive order, signed on Monday, mandates that U.S. drug prices should align with the lowest prices paid by other developed nations. Under the proposed “Most Favoured Nation” policy, the U.S. would no longer pay more for prescription medicines than any other country. The administration has given pharmaceutical companies 30 days to propose pricing solutions. Should they fail to deliver “significant progress” within six months, further government intervention is expected.

In a social media post, Trump argued that American consumers were unfairly burdened by high drug prices, noting that medicines manufactured in the same facilities are sold for significantly less in other countries. He emphasized that the United States bears a disproportionate share of global research and development costs, indirectly subsidizing affordable drugs for the rest of the world.

Indian Pharma Sector Reacts

The announcement caused immediate ripples in Indian stock markets. Shares of major pharmaceutical firms such as Sun Pharma plunged nearly 7% during early trading, while others including Lupin, Aurobindo Pharma, Divi’s Laboratories, and Glenmark Pharma also experienced a selloff.

Although Trump’s pricing directive primarily targets patented and branded drugs, experts warn of indirect consequences for India’s generic drug industry, which is heavily reliant on the U.S. market for exports.

“The concern lies in the potential policy response from multinational pharma companies,” said P.V. Appaji, former Director General of the Pharmaceuticals Export Promotion Council (Pharmexcil).

Threat of Patent Barriers Looms

Industry analysts believe that global drugmakers may respond to the price caps by tightening intellectual property regulations to prolong their market exclusivity and recover R&D investments. Potential measures include data exclusivity, automatic patent term extensions, patent linkage mechanisms, broader patentability criteria, and evergreening tactics.

Such practices, if adopted widely, could delay the entry of generic drugs into global markets and restrict the availability of off-patent drugs for Indian manufacturers. “These moves threaten to shrink the pipeline of medicines going off-patent, directly impacting India’s generic export prospects,” warned Ravi Uday Bhaskar, another former Pharmexcil chief.

India’s Stance on Patent Flexibilities

India has historically resisted stringent patent norms in trade negotiations, advocating for access to affordable medicines as a public health priority. The country does not recognize data exclusivity and maintains that regulatory authorities can rely on existing clinical trial data to approve generics. It also rejects patent linkage, preventing unnecessary legal hurdles that could delay the launch of affordable versions.

“India blocks evergreening by disallowing patents for minor modifications to existing drugs,” said Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI).

However, if global pharmaceutical giants succeed in influencing trade agreements to include such provisions, Indian generic drug manufacturers may face significant challenges. The development and export of specialty generics—high-value, complex generics—could particularly be affected.

The Road Ahead

While the immediate impact of Trump’s executive order may be limited to branded drugs, the broader implications could be far-reaching for India’s pharmaceutical industry. Any moves to fortify global patent laws or extend exclusivity periods could undermine India’s position as the “pharmacy of the world” and disrupt access to affordable medications in many countries.

As the U.S. pushes forward with its aggressive drug pricing reforms, industry stakeholders and policymakers in India will need to closely monitor international negotiations and advocate for a balanced approach that safeguards innovation without compromising global health access.