IP Law

IP law analysis

German Firm ParTec Sues Nvidia, Seeks AI Hardware Ban Across 18 European Countries

by

German supercomputing specialist ParTec AG has launched a fresh legal offensive against U.S. chip giant Nvidia, filing a patent infringement lawsuit at the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Munich. The company aims to secure an injunction that would block the sale of Nvidia’s DGX AI supercomputers in 18 European countries.

ParTec alleges that Nvidia copied its patented dynamic Modular System Architecture (dMSA), a design that enables real-time coordination between CPUs and GPUs for high-efficiency AI computing. According to the filing, the technology is central to modern supercomputing performance and powers some of Europe’s largest AI installations.

The lawsuit marks the third patent dispute ParTec has initiated against Nvidia. The company has also demanded that Nvidia disclose detailed sales figures for the DGX line and pay damages for the alleged infringement.

Collaboration Talks Turned Sour
ParTec claims the dispute began in 2019, when it shared details of its dMSA technology and ParaStation software with Nvidia during discussions about a potential partnership. Despite initial interest, the two firms never formalized an agreement. ParTec says Nvidia later integrated the patented design into its DGX systems without permission.

Nvidia continued to supply GPUs to supercomputing projects linked to ParTec, but the German company argues that the absence of a licensing deal made such use unlawful. ParTec also suggests Nvidia’s reluctance to negotiate may stem from its earlier patent case in Texas against Microsoft, one of Nvidia’s largest customers, over the same technology.

Legal and Market Stakes
If the UPC grants the injunction, Nvidia could be forced to redesign its AI hardware or strike a licensing deal with ParTec before re-entering these 18 European markets. The outcome could disrupt Nvidia’s dominance in AI infrastructure across the region and set a precedent for enforcing European technology patents against major U.S. firms.

ParTec’s legal representative, BF exaQC AG, emphasised that protecting Europe’s home-grown innovations is essential for the continent’s technological sovereignty. “Our inventions power some of the most advanced supercomputers in Europe. We have a duty to defend them,” a company spokesperson said.

The Unified Patent Court’s ruling will carry weight well beyond this dispute. As one of the first high-profile AI hardware cases before the UPC, it could shape how Europe balances innovation protection with global competition in the race for AI supremacy.

Delhi High Court Allows Use of Section 104A at Interim Stage in Patent Cases

by

In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970, can be invoked at the interim stage of a patent infringement suit. This allows the plaintiff to seek disclosure of the defendant’s manufacturing process before the trial begins. Justice Amit Bansal delivered the verdict while hearing a case between Roche and Zydus Lifesciences.

Background of the Case

Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche filed a patent infringement suit against Zydus, alleging that the latter had used a patented process to manufacture a biosimilar of Pertuzumab, a drug used to treat breast cancer. Roche claimed that Zydus’s product was identical to the product made using its patented process.

At the interim stage, Roche invoked Section 104A, seeking disclosure of Zydus’s process. Zydus opposed this request, arguing that Section 104A could not be used before the trial. It also claimed its product was different and that such disclosures would harm its trade secrets.

Court’s Observations

Justice Bansal held that the law does not prohibit the use of Section 104A at the interlocutory stage. The Court emphasized that if the plaintiff shows that the defendant’s product is identical to the patented product, then the burden can shift to the defendant. The defendant would then have to prove that they used a different process.

“There is no bar under the Patents Act to invoke Section 104A at the interim stage,” said Justice Bansal.

He further clarified that the section was designed to address the difficulty patent holders face in proving process infringement, especially in complex pharmaceutical cases.

Protection for Trade Secrets

The Court acknowledged Zydus’s concern regarding confidential business information. It stated that while disclosure may be necessary, the court must ensure that commercial secrets are protected. The ruling allows for controlled disclosure, possibly through confidentiality clubs or similar safeguards.

Understanding Section 104A

Section 104A of the Patents Act provides for a burden-shifting mechanism. It comes into play when:

The patent is for a new product made using a patented process.

The plaintiff reasonably believes that the defendant is using the same process.

The plaintiff cannot determine the process used by the defendant through reasonable means.

If these conditions are met, the defendant must then prove that their process is different.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling is expected to have a major impact on process patent litigation in India, particularly in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. It strengthens the ability of patent holders to enforce their rights early in the litigation process.

The Court’s decision ensures that genuine claims by patentees are not delayed unnecessarily. At the same time, it balances commercial interests by protecting trade secrets.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment sets a crucial precedent in Indian patent law. It confirms that Section 104A can be used at the interim stage, provided the plaintiff meets the necessary thresholds. This will likely aid companies facing infringement of process patents, especially in cases involving biosimilars and generic drugs.

BMW F 450 GS Set to Launch in India by Late 2025: A Twin-Cylinder Adventure Bike with Global Appeal

by

BMW Motorrad is gearing up to enter the competitive mid-capacity adventure motorcycle market in India with the all-new BMW F 450 GS. This upcoming adventure tourer brings a 450cc parallel-twin engine, advanced electronic features, and a design inspired by the flagship GS range. With local production handled by TVS Motor Company, BMW aims to offer the perfect balance between performance, affordability, and global quality.

🔧 Engine and Performance: Twin-Cylinder Efficiency
The BMW F 450 GS will debut a newly developed 450cc liquid-cooled parallel-twin engine. It generates an estimated 48 horsepower and around 45 Nm of torque, placing it in the A2 license-compliant category for international markets. BMW pairs this engine with a 6-speed gearbox and a slip-and-assist clutch to ensure smoother shifts and better low-speed control — ideal for both city traffic and off-road trails.

The brand’s focus on mid-range torque ensures the F 450 GS delivers usable power across varied terrain, whether navigating urban roads or heading into rugged adventure zones.

🛠️ Design and Frame: Lightweight ADV Dynamics
BMW has designed the F 450 GS with clear visual inspiration from its bigger siblings like the BMW R 1300 GS and F 900 GS. Spy shots and patent images reveal a tall beak-style front fairing, angular fuel tank extensions, and a slim LED headlight setup — giving it an unmistakably aggressive ADV stance.

Built on a steel trellis frame with a bolt-on subframe, the motorcycle promises structural strength and easier repairs in remote locations. A 19-inch front and 17-inch rear wheel setup — currently seen with alloy wheels — will likely support dual-purpose tires, while higher variants may feature spoked wheels for better off-road credibility.

🧠 Technology and Features: Smart Rider Aids
BMW has equipped the F 450 GS with a 6.5-inch full-color TFT display, Bluetooth connectivity, and multiple ride modes, including Road, Rain, and Off-Road options. Riders can expect standard features like dual-channel ABS, with more premium models offering cornering ABS and switchable traction control.

These features aim to make the F 450 GS one of the most technologically advanced motorcycles in the sub-500cc adventure category. Optional accessories may include a quickshifter, adjustable windscreen, and heated grips — reinforcing BMW’s premium image.

🏭 Made-in-India Manufacturing: BMW x TVS Partnership
In a strategic move to price the F 450 GS competitively in India, BMW Motorrad will manufacture the motorcycle at TVS Motor Company’s Hosur plant. This is the same facility that currently builds the BMW G 310 GS, G 310 R, and G 310 RR for global markets.

By leveraging local sourcing and Indian manufacturing, BMW aims to reduce production costs without compromising on quality. This partnership with TVS also ensures better serviceability and parts availability across India.

💰 Expected Price and Launch Timeline in India
Industry insiders expect BMW to price the F 450 GS between ₹4.0 lakh and ₹4.5 lakh (ex-showroom), placing it slightly above the KTM 390 Adventure and Royal Enfield Himalayan 450 but below the Honda NX500. The official launch is expected in late 2025, possibly at the EICMA 2025 show in Milan, with Indian deliveries starting by early 2026.

BMW is expected to open bookings shortly after the unveiling, with test rides and showroom displays in key Indian cities.

⚔️ Rivals in the Segment
The BMW F 450 GS will compete directly with the following adventure bikes in India:

| Motorcycle | Engine | Power | Price (Ex-Showroom) |
| ———————————– | ———— | ——- | ——————- |
| **KTM 390 Adventure SW** | 373cc single | 43.5 hp | ₹3.60 lakh |
| **Royal Enfield Himalayan 450** | 452cc single | 40 hp | ₹2.85 lakh |
| **Honda NX500** | 471cc twin | 47 hp | ₹5.90 lakh |
| **CFMoto 450 MT** | 449cc twin | 43 hp | ₹4.60 lakh |
| **Aprilia Tuareg 457** *(upcoming)* | 457cc twin | \~48 hp | ₹5.0 lakh (est.) |


Despite being the most premium in this price bracket, the BMW F 450 GS could appeal to adventure enthusiasts seeking a well-rounded twin-cylinder machine with high brand value and loaded features.

📣 What Riders Say
Online forums and motorcycle communities have shown strong interest in the BMW F 450 GS. Many riders praise the bike’s balanced specs and adventure-ready chassis, while others express cautious optimism about its pricing.

“This is the bike the GS series needed — lighter, more accessible, but still a BMW,” one Reddit user commented on a recent spy shot thread.
“If it stays under 180 kg and under ₹4.5 lakh, I’m booking it on day one,” added another enthusiast from the Indian biking community.

✅ Conclusion: BMW Enters Compact Adventure Space with Purpose
With the F 450 GS, BMW Motorrad is set to redefine India’s mid-range ADV motorcycle segment. Backed by global engineering, local manufacturing, and a rider-focused feature list, this motorcycle brings the iconic GS lineage to a wider audience.

As BMW prepares for the official reveal later this year, adventure riders in India and abroad eagerly await a twin-cylinder machine that combines technology, durability, and everyday practicality in one smart package.

AMU Researchers Secure Patent for Breakthrough Breath-Based Diabetes Detection Sensor

by


In a significant stride towards non-invasive medical diagnostics, a team of researchers at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has been granted a patent for developing an innovative breath-based sensor designed to detect diabetes by analyzing exhaled breath. The development signals a potential shift away from painful blood pricks towards more convenient and patient-friendly diagnostic methods.

🔬 The Innovation: Breath-Based Acetone Sensor

The patented device is a nano-engineered sensor system capable of identifying volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—particularly acetone—in the breath of individuals. Elevated levels of acetone are commonly associated with Type 1 and uncontrolled Type 2 diabetes. The sensor uses a ternary nanocomposite material, which reacts sensitively to trace concentrations of acetone in the exhaled breath, enabling real-time analysis.

The invention was led by Dr. Mohammad Zain Khan, Associate Professor in the Department of Industrial Chemistry at AMU. His research team has focused on the development of cost-effective, portable, and non-invasive diagnostic tools. The breath sensor marks a significant departure from conventional methods of glucose monitoring that involve finger-prick blood sampling or continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), which can be expensive and invasive.

🏥 Why This Matters

India has the second-highest number of diabetes patients in the world, with over 100 million diabetics and 136 million pre-diabetics, according to the ICMR-INDIAB study (2023). Early detection is critical, especially in rural or underserved areas where blood-testing infrastructure is minimal.

The breath-based sensor provides:

  • Painless diagnosis
  • Rapid results
  • Lower risk of infection
  • Ease of use for home-based monitoring

🧪 Scientific Details

The sensor works by detecting acetone molecules in exhaled breath using a functionalized carbon nanotube or ternary nanocomposite film, which shows changes in electrical conductivity upon acetone exposure. These signals are then interpreted using embedded electronics to determine diabetic status.

Key features:

  • High sensitivity to low acetone concentrations (in ppm range)
  • Selectivity against interfering gases
  • Operates at room temperature
  • Compact and energy-efficient design

📜 Patent Details and Recognition

The patent has been granted under the Indian Patent Act, recognizing the novelty and industrial applicability of the sensor. The device is expected to enter prototype validation and clinical testing stages in collaboration with medical institutes.

Dr. Khan has also filed international patent applications, and two additional Indian patents are under process. His work has been widely published in peer-reviewed journals and has earned recognition at several innovation showcases.

“Our goal is to make diabetes screening as simple as blowing into a device, especially for people in resource-poor settings,” said Dr. Khan.

🧭 The Road Ahead

The AMU team is currently exploring partnerships for pilot-scale manufacturing, clinical trials, and potential commercialization. If successful, the device could significantly reduce the cost and burden of diabetes detection, not only in India but globally.

🔗 Related Links

Operation Sindoor’ Trademark Bids Rejected Amid Public Backlash and Legal Concerns

by

In a significant move, the Indian government has rejected multiple trademark applications filed for the term “Operation Sindoor”. These applications, submitted shortly after India’s cross-border military action in May 2025, sparked widespread public outrage and legal scrutiny.

🔺 Background: What Is Operation Sindoor?

Operation Sindoor refers to a military operation launched by India on May 7, 2025, targeting terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The action came after the deadly Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 people, including security personnel and civilians.

The codename quickly became a symbol of national pride and military valor. However, its use in trademark filings triggered criticism for trying to commercialize a sensitive national event.

Learn more about India’s military operations.

📝 Trademark Race Begins

On the same day as the operation, at least four trademark applications for “Operation Sindoor” were filed with the Indian Trademark Registry under Class 41. This class includes services such as film production, education, and entertainment.

The applicants included:

  • Reliance Industries (Jio Studios)
  • A retired Air Force officer
  • A Mumbai-based lawyer
  • An individual from the entertainment industry

Class 41 under Indian Trademark Law

🛑 Reliance Withdraws Application

Facing public outrage, Reliance Industries swiftly withdrew its application. On May 8, 2025, the company clarified that the filing was inadvertent and made by a junior employee without authorization.

“Reliance has no intention to use or commercialize a term that reflects the courage and sacrifice of our armed forces,” the company said in a public statement.

Read the full Reliance withdrawal statement here.

⚖️ Government Rejects All Applications

On August 1, 2025, the Commerce and Industry Ministry confirmed in the Rajya Sabha that all applications related to “Operation Sindoor” were formally rejected.

This decision was based on:

  • Section 9(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars marks that offend public sentiment
  • The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, which prohibits using military names for private gains

View the Trade Marks Act, 1999
View the Emblems and Names Act, 1950

🔊 Public and Legal Reactions

The trademark filings led to a strong backlash from civil society, legal experts, and political leaders.

  • Many labeled the act as “moment trademarking”—a trend where individuals or companies rush to claim terms from national events.
  • Legal experts warned this could set a dangerous precedent and harm the dignity of national operations.
  • A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court, demanding that such terms be barred from commercial registration permanently.

Read more on India’s trademark ethics debate.

📌 What the Law Says

Indian Trademark Law prevents:

  • Use of marks that hurt public order or morality
  • Misleading names that imply government endorsement
  • Registration of military or national symbols

Global Perspective:

Other countries like the US and UK also have provisions barring the trademarking of government or military-related terms.

Explore India’s IPR regime
Compare with US Trademark Law (USPTO)

🔍 What’s Next?

  • All “Operation Sindoor” trademark applications have been officially canceled.
  • The Supreme Court may decide on broader legal safeguards to prevent future misuse of national phrases.
  • Industry experts call for clearer IP policy reforms to address ethical concerns in trademark registration.

📈 SEO Summary

Keywords: Operation Sindoor, Trademark Rejected, Reliance Industries, India Military Operation, Trademark Law India, Public Interest Litigation, Trade Marks Act 1999, National Symbol Trademark

Conclusion:
The rejection of the “Operation Sindoor” trademark filings sends a clear message: national identity is not for sale. As India navigates the complex balance between intellectual property rights and public sentiment, this case may well shape future IP policy.

Nutella Recognized as a Well-Known Trademark by Delhi High Court, Strengthening Ferrero’s Brand Rights in India

by

In a significant win for global confectionery company Ferrero SpA, the Delhi High Court has officially granted Nutella the status of a well-known trademark under Indian trademark law. This legal recognition provides Nutella with stronger protection against unauthorized use and counterfeit products in India.

⚖️ Court Ruling: A Landmark in Trademark Protection

The case was heard in the matter of Ferrero SpA v. MB Enterprises by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who concluded that Nutella had built substantial brand equity in India and deserved the enhanced legal safeguards that come with being classified as a well-known trademark.

The Court issued a permanent injunction against MB Enterprises, a firm found producing and distributing counterfeit Nutella jars. In addition to the injunction, the company was directed to pay ₹30 lakh in damages and ₹2 lakh in legal costs to Ferrero.

🧃 Nutella’s Growth in India: A Strong Market Presence

Although Nutella was launched internationally in 1964, it officially entered the Indian market around 2009. Since then, Ferrero has significantly expanded Nutella’s visibility and market penetration across India.

Evidence submitted in court showed that Ferrero invested heavily in brand promotion, with advertising budgets ranging between ₹3 crore and ₹16 crore annually. The company also reported substantial sales, including ₹233 crore in revenue during the 2020–21 financial year, followed by ₹145 crore in 2021–22 and ₹106 crore in 2022–23 (Source – Economic Times).

🚨 Counterfeiting Crisis: Serious Risks for Consumers

The case originated after a Maharashtra FDA raid in October 2021 revealed a large-scale counterfeit operation. Authorities discovered over 950,000 fake Nutella jars and hundreds of thousands of packaging materials mimicking Ferrero’s original branding. The products were being sold across Indian markets under deceptive names.

The court observed that counterfeit edible goods pose serious public health risks, particularly when they target children and families, who are the primary consumers of Nutella.

📜 Legal Implication: Why “Well-Known” Trademark Status Matters

A “well-known” status under Indian trademark law provides extraordinary legal protection, even beyond related categories. It prevents other entities from using similar branding or packaging—even on unrelated goods—if it causes confusion or dilutes the reputation of the original brand.

The ruling is in alignment with international recognition of Nutella’s trademark by global bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the International Trademark Association (INTA).

🌍 Global Brands and Indian Courts: A Growing Trend

Nutella joins a growing list of global names, including Red Bull, Burger King, DHL, and New Balance, that have been granted “well-known” status by Indian courts. These decisions reflect a broader trend in Indian jurisprudence that values trans-border reputation and protects international trademarks from local misuse (Reference – APAA).

✅ Conclusion

With this judgment, Ferrero has secured stronger trademark enforcement in India, protecting its iconic Nutella brand from unauthorized use and market dilution. The decision strengthens consumer trust, promotes brand authenticity, and reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to intellectual property rights.

🔗 External Links:

India’s New Trade Deal Safeguards Generic Drug Industry, Rejects Patent Extensions and Data Exclusivity

by
India has reaffirmed its commitment to affordable medicines and public health safeguards in its latest Free Trade Agreement (FTA), signed on **July 24**. The government announced that the deal does **not include provisions** for **patent term extensions** or **data exclusivity**, commonly sought by multinational pharmaceutical companies to extend their market monopolies.

The **Ministry of Commerce and Industry** clarified that critical sections of the **Indian Patents Act, 1970** — notably **Section 3(d)** and **Section 3(b)** — will remain fully protected under the FTA. These provisions are key to India’s rejection of “**evergreening**” practices, which involve patenting minor modifications of existing drugs to delay generic competition.

> 🔗 [Section 3(d) – Indian Patents Act](https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Patent_Amendment_Act_2005.pdf)

**Section 3(d)** allows patents only for new drug forms that demonstrate **enhanced efficacy**, while **Section 3(b)** restricts patents for inventions that are **contrary to public interest** or lack significant therapeutic benefit.

> “India’s patent regime remains intact. There is no obligation under the new agreement to extend patent terms or introduce data exclusivity for pharmaceuticals or agrochemicals,” the ministry said in an official release.

The government emphasized that the FTA **does not include**:

* **Patent term extensions** to compensate for regulatory delays.
* **Data exclusivity** that would prevent Indian regulators from using innovator data to approve generics.
* **Patent linkage**, which ties drug approval to patent status.
* **Automatic injunctions** that delay generic entry during litigation.

> 🔗 [Understanding Data Exclusivity – WHO](https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/intellectual-property-data-exclusivity)

These exclusions are a win for India’s **USD 25 billion generic drug industry**, which supplies nearly **50% of its pharmaceutical output** to global markets, including **life-saving drugs for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and cancer** in low- and middle-income countries.

> 🔗 [India’s Generic Pharmaceutical Sector – Brookings](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-indian-pharmaceutical-industry/)

The deal follows similar resistance by India during talks with the **European Free Trade Association (EFTA)** — comprised of **Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein** — where India successfully opposed attempts to insert stricter IP protections in their FTA finalized in **March 2023**.

> 🔗 [EFTA–India FTA Overview](https://www.efta.int/free-trade/Free-Trade-Agreement/India)

Pressure to include such IP provisions often comes from countries with large pharmaceutical industries, including the **UK** and **Switzerland**, home to global players like **AstraZeneca**, **GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)**, **Novartis**, and **Roche**.

However, India’s stance remains consistent with its obligations under the **World Trade Organization’s (WTO) TRIPS Agreement**, which does not require countries to implement **data exclusivity** or **patent extensions**. Experts argue that such measures are “**TRIPS-plus**” provisions that go beyond international norms.

> 🔗 [WTO TRIPS Agreement](https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm)

India also draws strength from the **Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health (2001)**, which affirms the right of WTO members to protect public health and promote access to medicines.

> 🔗 [Doha Declaration – WTO](https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm)

“This agreement reinforces India’s role as the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’ by ensuring that domestic laws prioritize **access to affordable medicines** over extended monopolies,” said a Delhi-based trade policy expert.

The FTA will undergo legislative procedures before coming into effect, expected within the next year. For now, the government’s firm stance is seen as a strategic move to protect its pharmaceutical export economy and uphold public health imperatives.

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.

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.

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.