Gayatri

Gayatri is the Analyst for IP News, specializing in complex litigation and policy developments in intellectual property ecosystem. Expertise and Background Gayatri holds a Master’s degree. Her professional experience spans focusing on the intersection of pharmaceutical patents, trademark jurisprudence, and digital rights enforcement. Focus Areas: Patents Act 1970, Trademark Act 1999, Delhi High Court litigation analysis, and the enforcement of statutory standards like Section 3(d) (efficacy) and the Bolar exemption. Analytical Approach: Gayatri's reporting is distinguished by its meticulous breakdown of court orders, transforming complex legal language into actionable insights for the corporate, scientific, and legal communities. She uses the latest case law and judicial trends to provide readers with accurate, forward-looking analysis of the Indian legal landscape.

Torrent Pharma Set to Launch Generic Semaglutide in India After 2026 Patent Expiry

by

Torrent Pharmaceuticals is preparing to launch both oral and injectable forms of semaglutide in India after Novo Nordisk’s patent expires in March 2026. The move positions Torrent as a leading player in the upcoming GLP-1 generics market.

✔️ Phase III Trials Approved

Torrent secured regulatory approval from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) to begin Phase III clinical trials for semaglutide tablets (3 mg, 7 mg, and 14 mg) in April 2025. The trials are a crucial step toward gaining marketing authorization after the patent expiry.

📄 Torrent gets CDSCO nod for semaglutide Phase III trial – Medical Dialogues

🧬 Patent Expiry Sparks Race Among Generics

Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide patent is set to expire in India by March 2026. This has opened doors for Indian pharma companies to enter the diabetes and obesity drug segment, currently dominated by Ozempic and Wegovy.

🌐 Semaglutide Patent Information – DrugPatentWatch

🏭 Government Support via PLI Scheme

To boost local manufacturing, the Indian government plans to introduce a production-linked incentive (PLI) scheme starting in 2026. The initiative aims to encourage domestic firms to produce GLP-1 class drugs, including semaglutide.

📊 India plans incentives for GLP-1 drug makers – Reuters

⚖️ Legal Hurdles for Early Launches

Despite growing interest, companies like Dr. Reddy’s and OneSource Specialty Pharma face legal barriers. Novo Nordisk has filed patent infringement suits in Indian courts to block early entry. The Delhi High Court has restricted domestic sales of semaglutide by these firms pending further hearings.

⚖️ Delhi High Court action on semaglutide generics – LawyersArc

🏁 Competition Heats Up

Apart from Torrent, major Indian pharma companies including Sun Pharma, Cipla, Zydus Lifesciences, Aurobindo Pharma, Natco, Lupin, and Biocon are actively exploring opportunities in the GLP-1 space.

  • Dr. Reddy’s aims to launch semaglutide in 87 countries by 2026.
  • Biocon targets approvals in India and Canada by late 2026.

📈 Dr. Reddy’s global semaglutide launch – Reuters

🌎 Biocon eyes 2026 launch of semaglutide generics – Reuters

📦 Delivery Devices in Demand

Companies producing injection pens and delivery devices, such as Shaily Engineering Plastics, are scaling operations to meet growing demand for semaglutide delivery systems.

🧩 GLP-1 device makers gear up for demand – Economic Times

📌 Key Highlights

  • Patent expiry in March 2026 opens Indian market for semaglutide generics.
  • Torrent’s Phase III trials approved for oral formulations.
  • PLI incentives to support local GLP-1 production.
  • Legal battles delay some competitors from launching early.
  • India’s pharma giants eyeing a share of the $150 billion global GLP-1 market.

India Reiterates Ban on Patent Evergreening: Piyush Goyal Emphasizes Public Health Over Pharma Profits

by

Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal has reiterated that India will not allow evergreening of pharmaceutical patents. Speaking at a recent trade event, Goyal highlighted India’s commitment to affordable healthcare and equitable access to medicines. He firmly stated that evergreening contradicts Indian law and undermines public health.

🔍 What Is Evergreening?

Evergreening is a strategy where pharmaceutical firms seek new patents for minor changes to existing drugs. These changes often include alterations in formulation, dosage, or delivery methods. The intent is to extend monopoly rights and delay generic drug entry.

India’s Patents Act, 1970, under Section 3(d), prohibits such practices unless the new version offers significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy.

👉 Read Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act
👉 What is Evergreening – WHO Definition

🗨️ Goyal’s Firm Stand Against Evergreening

Piyush Goyal emphasized that India has faced repeated pressure from multinational pharmaceutical companies to weaken its IP laws. He stated:

“India does not permit evergreening. We protect genuine patents. But we will not let companies misuse the system to maintain monopolies.”

He challenged critics to show a single instance where India violated intellectual property rights. According to Goyal, none have been able to do so.

⚖️ The Legal Foundation: Section 3(d)

India’s Section 3(d) is a globally recognized provision. It has prevented the misuse of the patent system and has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the Novartis vs. Union of India case.

In 2013, India’s top court rejected Novartis’ patent for a modified version of the cancer drug Glivec, ruling it lacked increased efficacy.

👉 Learn more about the Novartis Case

This ruling became a milestone in India’s public health jurisprudence and strengthened the nation’s stance on patent quality over quantity.

🌍 Public Health Over Profits

Goyal underlined that India’s patent system aims to balance innovation with access. He noted:

“Our goal is to make life-saving medicines available at affordable rates—not to support super-profits for a few companies.”

India’s approach supports global healthcare. The country is known as the “Pharmacy of the Global South”, supplying low-cost generics to over 200 nations.

The government also runs Ayushman Bharat, one of the world’s largest public health programs, covering more than 620 million people.

👉 Visit Ayushman Bharat official website

🌐 Global Support and Recognition

India’s position has gained support from global health advocates. Organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) have praised Section 3(d) for preventing abusive patent extensions.

International forums including the World Trade Organization (WTO) have acknowledged India’s right to use TRIPS flexibilities to protect public health.

👉 TRIPS Agreement – WTO

🧾 Summary Table: India’s Policy on Patent Evergreening

IssueIndia’s Position
EvergreeningStrictly prohibited under Section 3(d)
Valid PatentsFully respected during legal term
TRIPS ComplianceYes, with use of flexibilities
Pressure to Amend IP LawsResisted to safeguard public health
Generic Medicine PromotionEncouraged for affordable drug access

🔑 Key Takeaways

  • India will not compromise its patent law to favor big pharma.
  • Section 3(d) remains the cornerstone of India’s patent policy.
  • The government remains committed to TRIPS-compliant innovation and global medicine accessibility.

India–UK FTA May Threaten Access to Affordable Medicines, Warn Civil Groups

by

The proposed India–UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has sparked major concerns among civil society groups, especially regarding its impact on access to affordable medicines. Leaked drafts suggest the deal may include TRIPS-plus intellectual property (IP) clauses, which could extend patent monopolies, delay generic drug production, and ultimately raise medicine prices for millions.

Leaked IP Provisions Raise Red Flags

Health organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the Trade Justice Movement (TJM) have criticised the draft IP chapter of the FTA. These provisions reportedly go beyond the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement, which currently governs global IP standards.

Key problematic provisions include:

  • Evergreening of patents: This tactic allows pharmaceutical companies to make minor changes to existing drugs and renew their patents, thereby blocking generic competition.
  • Patent term extensions: Companies may gain longer exclusive rights beyond the standard 20-year patent term.
  • Data exclusivity: This prevents generic manufacturers from using clinical trial data to gain regulatory approval, even after patents expire.
  • Ban on pre-grant opposition: The FTA may restrict Indian legal provisions that allow public and civil groups to challenge weak or frivolous patent applications before approval.
  • IP enforcement measures: These could empower customs authorities to block exports of Indian generics, even when legal in the destination country.

Read more about TRIPS-plus concerns here.

India’s Role as Global Generic Drug Supplier

India is often called the “pharmacy of the Global South”, supplying affordable generics for diseases like HIV, tuberculosis, cancer, and malaria. Millions across low- and middle-income countries depend on Indian-manufactured generics for survival.

According to MSF, any disruption to India’s generic drug industry could have serious public health consequences worldwide.

In addition, India supplies around 25% of the UK’s NHS medicines. A weakened Indian pharma sector could also raise drug costs in the UK.

More on India’s generic drug exports

FTA Offers Economic Gains, But at What Cost?

The India–UK FTA aims to strengthen bilateral trade. It promises tariff-free access for Indian exports and could boost sectors like pharmaceuticals, automobiles, and textiles. UK exports, including medical devices and healthcare technology, are also set to benefit from reduced import duties in India.

The Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO) and PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI) have expressed optimism about the deal’s economic benefits. However, they remain cautious about its potential implications for public health and medicine affordability.

View economic implications here

Public Health at Risk

Health experts warn that introducing TRIPS-plus standards could delay access to life-saving medicines, especially for diseases like tuberculosis and HIV, where timely treatment is crucial.

Generic versions of key drugs like delamanid and bedaquiline could be delayed, making them unaffordable for many patients. India’s current patent laws, especially Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, have helped prevent evergreening and encourage generic competition.

“The proposed IP provisions will impact not just India but also people across the world who rely on Indian generics,” said Leena Menghaney of MSF’s Access Campaign.

Ongoing Advocacy

Multiple campaigns have urged India and the UK to remove harmful IP provisions from the FTA. Activists argue that trade agreements should not undermine public health for corporate profits.

The UK Parliament has also raised concerns. Lawmakers like Nick Thomas-Symonds have warned that such provisions could increase the NHS’s drug bill while harming patients globally.

Read The Guardian’s editorial on this issue

Final Word

While the India–UK FTA has the potential to deepen trade and boost exports, public health must not be sacrificed for profit. Stakeholders continue to call for transparency in negotiations and protection of India’s legal tools that ensure access to affordable medicine.

Disclaimer:
This article is a factual, independently written report based on publicly available sources and does not represent the views of any government or organization. For more, see The Federal’s original coverage.

Delhi High Court Reviews Mohak Mangal’s Plea to Transfer ANI’s Copyright Suit to IP Division Under Commercial Courts Act

by

SEO Title:
Delhi High Court Reviews Mohak Mangal’s Plea to Transfer ANI’s Copyright Suit to IP Division Under Commercial Courts Act

The Delhi High Court has taken up a petition filed by popular YouTuber Mohak Mangal, seeking the transfer of a copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by news agency ANI from the Patiala House District Court to the High Court’s Intellectual Property (IP) Division.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani heard the matter on July 18, 2025, and raised critical questions about the jurisdiction of a single-judge bench under Section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

> “Can I even hear this petition? Shouldn’t this go to the Division Bench (DB)?” the judge remarked.

Background of the Dispute

ANI filed a suit in the Patiala House Court, accusing Mangal of copyright and trademark violations through content on his YouTube channel.
Mangal’s lawyer, Advocate Nakul Dewan, argued that since 6 out of the 10 videos cited in the ANI case are already under scrutiny in the defamation matter pending before the IP Division, it would be efficient and consistent to consolidate both cases.

ANI Opposes Transfer Plea

Siddhant Kumar, representing ANI, opposed the plea. He contended that the causes of action differ—with the Patiala House matter addressing IP rights and the High Court case focusing on defamation. Therefore, Kumar maintained, the Commercial Appellate Division alone has the power to transfer suits between courts.

Court’s Observation and Next Steps

Justice Bhambhani did not dismiss the petition but instead raised serious questions about legal maintainability. The court directed the petitioner to produce case laws and documentation supporting the claim that a single-judge bench can entertain such a transfer application.

The judge noted:

> “You’re asking me to exercise a jurisdiction that may not belong to this bench.”

The matter is now listed for further hearing on July 25, 2025, before a coordinated IP Division bench, depending on the Chief Justice’s directions.

For court updates, visit the Delhi High Court website

Implications of the Case

This case brings attention to the procedural complexities of India’s IP litigation system, particularly when the same content forms the basis of multiple legal disputes. If the court allows the transfer, it may streamline litigation and reduce the risk of conflicting judgments.

It could also set a judicial precedent on how courts manage parallel legal issues involving online content creators and media organizations.

Disclaimer:

This news article is a journalistic rephrasing based on publicly available legal information and reports. It does not offer legal advice. For official legal documentation or advice, consult a qualified legal professional or access official court websites.

Macsen Labs Achieves Major Breakthrough in Sodium-Ion Battery Technology

by

In a significant development in the field of energy storage, Macsen Labs has announced a key innovation in sodium-ion battery chemistry. The company has successfully synthesized a high-performance, air-stable form of Prussian White, a sodium-rich material used as a cathode in sodium-ion batteries. This milestone not only brings India closer to energy self-reliance but also strengthens the global push for sustainable battery alternatives.

What is the Breakthrough?

Macsen’s innovation lies in producing Prussian White, known for its high sodium content and electrochemical performance comparable to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP). This new material is non-toxic, thermally stable, and offers faster charge-discharge cycles, making it an ideal candidate for grid energy storage, electric vehicles, and portable electronics.

For reference, Prussian White is a widely researched material in sodium-ion battery systems for its cost-effectiveness and eco-friendliness.


Patent Filed and Pilot Scale Ready

Macsen Labs has filed a provisional patent for its novel cathode chemistry based on this form of Prussian White. The company is now preparing to scale the innovation beyond the lab. According to their announcement, a dedicated battery research lab has been set up to develop, test, and manufacture sodium-ion cells at pilot scale.

The development positions Macsen as one of the first Indian companies to push forward in sodium-ion battery manufacturing. For more on their initiatives, visit Macsen’s official site.

Why Sodium-Ion Matters

Lithium-ion batteries dominate the energy market today, but sodium-ion batteries are emerging as a sustainable and cost-effective alternative. Sodium is more abundant than lithium, which reduces dependency on expensive and geopolitically sensitive lithium supply chains.

No cobalt or nickel needed.

Uses abundant raw materials.

Safer due to lower risk of thermal runaway.

Suitable for stationary storage and EVs.


For more insight, check this overview of sodium-ion battery technology.

Global and Indian Industry Trends

Macsen’s announcement puts India on the global map of this technology shift.

As per industry forecasts, the sodium-ion battery market is expected to witness strong growth in the next 5–7 years, especially in applications like renewable energy storage, solar grids, and two-wheel EVs.

What’s Next for Macsen?

Macsen Labs has shared that they are open to collaborations with academic institutions and industry partners. Their next steps include:

Full patent filing and validation.

Scaling to commercial-grade production.

Explore their battery materials R&D portfolio for technical insights.

Disclaimer:

This article is based on publicly available information and press releases. For further technical details, please refer to Macsen Labs’ official website.

Nokia Moves Delhi High Court Over Rejection of 5G Network Slicing Patent by Indian Patent Office

by

Nokia Technologies has filed a legal challenge in the Delhi High Court after the Indian Patent Office (IPO) declined to grant its patent application related to 5G network slicing technology. The court’s decision could have far-reaching effects on how India treats software-based inventions in the telecom sector.

Understanding Network Slicing

Network slicing is an advanced feature of 5G infrastructure that creates isolated virtual networks within a single physical system. Each slice can be tailored to serve a specific purpose—such as telemedicine, online gaming, or smart factories. Nokia’s patent focused on improving device registration through third-party authentication, enhancing security and speed for network access.

Why the Patent Was Rejected

On January 8, 2025, the IPO rejected the application on several grounds:

The invention was considered obvious, referencing existing 3GPP standards.

It was viewed as a software-only innovation, making it ineligible under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act.

The claims were poorly structured and lacked clarity, with improper dependencies and missed procedural updates.

Nokia’s Legal Argument

In its writ petition, Nokia defended its invention as novel and innovative. The company emphasized that the same patent has been approved in several major markets, including the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Nokia maintained that its technology supports mission-critical services, such as connected ambulances, real-time gaming, and autonomous transport.

High Court’s Action

The Delhi High Court has taken note of the petition and issued a notice to the IPO. The patent office has six weeks to respond. Nokia may file a rejoinder thereafter. The case is scheduled for the next hearing in November 2025.

Broader Implications

This case could set a major precedent for patent protection in India, particularly for software-integrated technologies. If the court rules in Nokia’s favor, it may lead to a more inclusive interpretation of what qualifies as patentable subject matter.

Tech firms such as Samsung, Ericsson, Qualcomm, and Huawei are closely observing the developments. The judgment may influence how global companies file for patents in India and invest in research and innovation.

Patent Law Challenges in India

India’s patent law, especially Section 3(k), restricts patents on software and algorithms unless they produce a technical effect or hardware improvement. Legal experts believe this case could clarify how future software-based telecom inventions are evaluated by the IPO.

Conclusion

Nokia’s legal challenge may prove to be a turning point in India’s approach to next-generation patent rights. With global attention focused on this case, the final verdict will impact not just Nokia but the broader telecom and digital innovation ecosystem.

Calcutta High Court Clarifies Patentability Under Section 3(b), Reverses Indian Patent Office Decision

by

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court overturned a refusal order by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), providing crucial clarity on the scope of Section 3(b) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The court held that the IPO had misapplied the section while rejecting ITC Limited’s patent application for a heater-based aerosol generation device.

The court emphasized that patentability cannot be denied merely on presumptions regarding possible harmful use, such as tobacco consumption.

🔍 Background of the Case

ITC filed a patent application for a non-electronic heater assembly that generates aerosols from substrates. While tobacco was mentioned as one potential substrate, the invention also allowed for non-tobacco applications.

Despite this, the IPO refused the application citing Section 3(b), claiming that the invention could be “injurious to public health.” The office referred to reports by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) without notifying ITC, denying the company an opportunity to respond.

Full judgment available at IAM Media.

⚖️ Court’s Observations

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, delivering the verdict, highlighted the following:

1. Misapplication of Section 3(b)

The court ruled that Section 3(b) — which bars patents on inventions “contrary to public order or morality” or “injurious to human, animal or plant life” — must be narrowly interpreted.

The judge stated:

“The mere presence of tobacco in the claims does not mean the invention is inherently injurious. There is no proof that the primary purpose is to aid tobacco consumption.”

This sets a precedent that patentability should be judged based on the primary function and not on speculative or optional uses.

2. Violation of Natural Justice

The IPO introduced external evidence (WHO/ICMR reports) at the final stage without giving ITC a chance to rebut. The court called this a procedural violation, stating that:

“Natural justice requires the applicant to be heard before new grounds are introduced.”

This procedural lapse led the court to send the case back for re-examination.

📌 Implications for Patent Law

This ruling could reshape how Section 3(b) is interpreted in India. Key takeaways include:

  • Restricting subjective interpretation of “morality” and “health” under Section 3(b).
  • Reinforcing natural justice in patent proceedings.
  • Emphasizing evidence-based examination over assumptions or regulatory bias.

This decision aligns Indian patent law with international standards, including TRIPS and European Patent Convention (EPC) frameworks.

For more insights on Indian patent rulings, visit our Intellectual Property section.

🔗 Related Readings

🧠 Expert Opinion

Legal experts hail this judgment as a landmark in balancing public health concerns with innovation rights.

“The court has rightly differentiated between public health policy and patent eligibility. It’s a much-needed check on arbitrary refusal trends,” said Raghav Mehra, IP attorney at LexOrbis.

📣 Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s judgment is expected to have a lasting impact on patent examination practices in India. It clearly draws the line between actual harm and hypothetical misuse, emphasizing due process and fair hearing for innovators.

As India pushes for more innovation and R&D, this ruling comes as a strong signal to protect inventors’ rights within the legal and constitutional framework.

NIFT Bengaluru Student Creates Eco-Friendly Wristwatch Inspired by Karnataka’s Channapatna Craft

by

Prithwiraj, originally from Singur near Kolkata, grew up surrounded by stories of art and culture thanks to his father, a Bengali literature professor and folk researcher. This early exposure inspired him to explore traditional Indian crafts. For his final-year project, he chose to study the **Channapatna craft**, Karnataka’s age-old wooden toy-making tradition, known for its distinctive lacquered wooden products. His innovation recently earned him an international design patent, marking a significant achievement in eco-conscious fashion design.

Over several weeks, Prithwiraj worked closely with Channapatna artisans. He learned their techniques, materials, and the cultural significance of their craft. Drawing from this experience, he designed the watch’s dial using lacquered wood colored with natural dyes sourced from the region, including the famous red color extracted from local soil. This authentic touch preserves the cultural legacy while giving the watch a warm, traditional appeal.

The watch case is crafted from recycled aluminum, sourced from discarded automobile engine parts and machinery. This sustainable choice reduces industrial waste and lowers the environmental footprint of the product. Olavu’s modular design allows users to swap wooden dials easily. This feature promotes personalization and prolongs the product’s life, contrasting with the disposable nature of many fashion accessories today.

Functionality is also a priority. The watch is water-resistant up to 200 meters (10-bar rating), thanks to the lacquer finish that prevents the wood from swelling or warping due to moisture. The precision of the watch is maintained with an accuracy of up to 0.5 mm, combining modern engineering with traditional craftsmanship.

The name “Olavu” means “love and affection” in Kannada, reflecting the emotional connection Prithwiraj wants to foster between the wearer and the watch. The international design patent recognizes the innovation and cultural significance of this creation, emphasizing how heritage and sustainability can coexist in modern design.

Prithwiraj’s work highlights the potential of young Indian designers to reshape fashion by integrating indigenous knowledge with contemporary needs. Olavu stands as a symbol of eco-friendly innovation rooted in tradition.

For more information about **Channapatna craft**, visit the [Karnataka Handicrafts Development Corporation](https://khandicrafts.karnataka.gov.in/).

To explore more on sustainable fashion and accessories, check out the [Sustainable Fashion Guide](https://www.sustainablefashionguide.org/).

Delhi High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh to Puma in Trademark Infringement Suit Over Counterfeit Goods

by

The Delhi High Court has awarded ₹8 lakh in damages to global sportswear giant PUMA SE in a trademark infringement case against a seller of counterfeit products. The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using Puma’s registered trademarks.

⚖️ Court Decision

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, held that the defendant had willfully violated Puma’s trademark rights by selling fake products bearing identical marks. The court observed that the imitation was not accidental but a deliberate attempt to deceive consumers.

The court noted:

“The products being sold by the defendant are counterfeit, carrying the same logos, marks, and branding, which clearly shows the intent to ride upon the reputation of the plaintiff.”

Since the defendant failed to appear or submit any response despite several notices—especially after February 2024—the case proceeded ex parte.

🔗 Read full judgment coverage on LiveLaw

🛑 Counterfeiting and Consumer Deception

The court emphasized that Puma’s trademarks are well-known globally and have established significant goodwill and consumer trust in India. The defendant, by selling goods with identical marks in the same trade channels, violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and engaged in unfair competition.

This judgment aims to set a precedent for stricter action against counterfeiters who infringe on the rights of established brands and mislead Indian consumers.

“This is not a mere case of passing off; it is a case of outright counterfeiting,” the court held.

💰 Damages and Penalty

The High Court awarded Puma ₹8 lakh as compensation, citing the following reasons:

  • The damage to the brand’s reputation.
  • The loss of genuine sales and business.
  • The need to deter such unlawful conduct.

The court rejected symbolic damages and instead granted substantial monetary relief, reinforcing the seriousness of trademark violations.

🧾 Background of the Case

Puma filed the lawsuit after discovering the unauthorized sale of counterfeit Puma products by a local trader. The company sought:

  • A permanent injunction.
  • Damages for trademark infringement.
  • Disclosure of profits earned from fake goods.

Despite several summonses and notices, the defendant remained absent, prompting the court to decide based on the material available.

🔍 Legal Significance

This case highlights India’s growing judicial commitment to protecting IP rights, especially for well-known trademarks. Courts are increasingly awarding higher damages to deter counterfeiting, sending a clear signal to violators.

A similar ruling by the Delhi High Court in March 2025 also awarded ₹11 lakh in damages to Puma in a separate counterfeit case, showing judicial consistency in protecting brand owners.

Delhi High Court Denies Patent for Kroll’s P2P Monitoring System, Citing Software Exclusion Under Section 3(k)

by

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant a patent to Kroll Information Assurance LLC, a US-based company, for a system designed to track users who share sensitive content through peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. The Court determined that the invention falls under the excluded category of computer programs or algorithms, as outlined in Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.

🔍 About the Patent Application

The Indian patent application (No. 8100/DELNP/2007), originating from a US priority application filed in April 2005, proposed a monitoring tool. This tool was intended to search P2P networks using keywords and identify users distributing confidential or protected files. The system aimed to create detailed user profiles and support data loss investigations.

According to the patent claim, the system functioned via basic computing infrastructure—processors, memory, storage devices—and relied heavily on software-based algorithms for search and analysis.

⚖️ Key Objections Raised by the Patent Office

The Indian Patent Office previously refused the application for the following reasons:

  1. Lack of Inventive Step: As per Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, the claimed invention was seen as obvious, offering no technical advancement over existing solutions.
  2. Ineligible Subject Matter: Under Section 3(k), the system was deemed a software algorithm or computer program, which is excluded from patentability in India.
  3. Improper Amendments: The amended claims were said to introduce elements not disclosed in the original filing, allegedly violating Section 59 of the Act.

🧑‍⚖️ Court’s Analysis and Final Verdict

The matter was heard by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, who offered a nuanced interpretation of Indian patent law:

  • On Amendments: The Court held that the claim amendments were valid. They were supported by the original specification and only narrowed the claims, which is permitted under Section 59.
  • On Technical Advancement: Despite allowing the amendments, the Court found the invention lacked any real technical contribution. It merely applied a known method—keyword searching—on a P2P platform using conventional computing resources.
  • On Section 3(k): The bench concluded that the claims represented a computer program per se, and thus clearly fell within the scope of the non-patentable subject matter under Section 3(k).

The Court relied on key precedents, including:

  • Ferid Allani v. Union of India – Read here
  • Microsoft Corp. v. Assistant Controller of Patents
  • Lava International Ltd. v. Ericsson

These rulings reaffirm that software without a technical effect or hardware integration is not eligible for patent protection in India.

🧠 Implications for Software Patentability

This judgment underscores India’s strict interpretation of Section 3(k). Patent claims that describe an algorithm or software-based method without technological innovation are likely to be denied, regardless of commercial or investigative utility.

To secure patent protection for software inventions in India, applicants must demonstrate that their innovation results in a technical effect or enhancement of a computing process or hardware function.

🌐 Useful Resources: