IP Law

IP law analysis

Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Bata in Power Flex Infringement Case

by
Bata POWER shoe logo vs Red Chief POWER FLEX footwear - Delhi High Court ruling

In a significant victory for established brands protecting their intellectual property, the Delhi High Court has dismissed appeals challenging a 2019 interim injunction that bars the use of the mark “POWER FLEX” in footwear products. The ruling reinforces Bata India Limited’s exclusive rights to its iconic “POWER” trademark, highlighting the risks of adopting similar marks even in slightly different product segments.

A Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld the single-judge order from 2019, which had initially restrained Leayan Global Private Limited – the company behind the popular Red Chief footwear brand – from using “POWER FLEX” pending the outcome of the main trademark infringement suit.

The dispute dates back to 2019 when Bata, a household name in India’s footwear market, filed a suit alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. Bata claimed that Leayan’s adoption of “POWER FLEX” for its leather shoes diluted the distinctiveness and goodwill associated with Bata’s “POWER” brand, primarily used for sports and canvas footwear since the 1970s.

Bata has multiple trademark registrations for “POWER,” both as a standalone word and in combination with devices or other terms. The company argued that “POWER” had acquired secondary meaning through decades of exclusive use, massive sales figures, and endorsements by sports personalities, making it strongly associated with Bata in consumers’ minds.

Leayan, on the other hand, contended that “POWER” is a common laudatory term meaning strength or durability, unsuitable for monopoly. They further argued that “POWER FLEX” was always used alongside their house mark “RED CHIEF,” targeted leather footwear rather than sports shoes, and posed no real confusion risk. Leayan also proposed undertakings to limit usage and avoid prominence to “POWER.”

The Division Bench rejected these defenses, finding a prima facie case of confusion. The court noted that “POWER” forms the dominant and essential part of “POWER FLEX,” potentially leading average consumers – who may not scrutinize differences in sub-categories like leather versus canvas – to believe the products originate from or are affiliated with Bata.

Importantly, the judges observed that even if “POWER FLEX” appears on packaging with “RED CHIEF,” its standalone use inside shoes could still mislead buyers. The court also dismissed arguments on delay or honest concurrent use, emphasizing Bata’s vigilance in opposing similar marks over the years.

However, the bench allowed Leayan to continue using the tagline “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER,” viewing it as descriptive of material quality rather than a trademark, provided no undue emphasis is given to “POWER.”

This decision underscores the strength of well-established trademarks in India, even when they incorporate common words, if long-term use has built unique goodwill. Legal experts say it serves as a cautionary tale for competitors entering crowded markets: adding suffixes like “FLEX” to a dominant registered mark may not suffice to avoid infringement claims, particularly in related goods like footwear variants.

The underlying suit for permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs remains pending before the single judge. Leayan may explore further appeals, but the upheld interim order maintains the status quo in Bata’s favor for now.

The ruling aligns with broader judicial trends protecting brand equity in India’s growing consumer market, where established players like Bata continue to dominate through rigorous IP enforcement.

Former Champion Jinder Mahal Challenges WWE “The Maharaja” Trademark

by
Digital illustration showing Jinder Mahal dressed as The Maharaja on the left, holding a scroll labeled 'The Maharaja Trademark Pending,' facing a shadowy, muscular figure representing WWE on the right. A lightning bolt separates them, and the WWE figure stands near a cracked tombstone labeled 'Intellectual Property Law,' with two judge's gavels on the ground.

The world of professional wrestling is buzzing. Former WWE Champion Jinder Mahal, whose real name is Raj Dhesi, has launched a major legal challenge against his former employer, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).

Dhesi is fighting for ownership of the in-ring persona, “The Maharaja.”

The Heart of the Battle

This dispute reveals a critical industry-wide conflict. Who truly owns a wrestler’s identity? Is it the performer who brings the character to life? Or is it the multi-million dollar corporation that employs and markets them?

WWE holds the trademark for “The Maharajah.” They secured this ownership in 2017.

Raj Dhesi contests this claim. He asserts he developed and used the “Maharaja” name as early as 2015. This was before the company made its official trademark claim. Dhesi argues the character belongs to him. He insists the persona is his creation, not a product of WWE’s creative team.

Legal Action Escalates

Dhesi first tried to register his own trademark. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected his attempts. They cited a “likelihood of confusion” with WWE’s existing ownership.

Dhesi refused to back down. He changed tactics. On December 4, 2025, Dhesi submitted a formal petition. This filing asks the USPTO to cancel WWE’s trademark entirely. Dhesi accuses the company of obtaining the trademark by “wrongful means.”

WWE must now prepare a defense. The wrestling giant has until February 3, 2026, to respond to Dhesi’s petition.

Industry Consequences Loom

The outcome of this case holds massive implications. It threatens to overturn decades of established wrestling business practices.

For years, WWE has kept tight control. They rarely allow talent to use their character names outside the company. If Dhesi wins, this legal precedent could have widespread effects.

  • Talent Empowerment: A victory could encourage other former wrestlers. They might sue to reclaim names and personas they helped develop.
  • IP Redefinition: The challenge forces WWE and the entire industry to rethink character ownership. It may redefine the line between talent creative rights and corporate intellectual property (IP).

Since his WWE release in April 2024, Dhesi has continued to use the name. He performs as “The Maharaja” on the independent circuit. This ongoing usage strengthens his claim. He aims to prove that the identity remains his own, separate from the corporation.

The industry watches closely. The final ruling will impact how wrestling companies manage their most valuable assets: their performers and their characters.

MDU Rohtak Patent: Laser-Free Tech Cuts Osmotic Tablet Cost

by
A detailed, realistic 3D render of a pharmaceutical manufacturing process. A stainless steel tablet compression machine with specialized notched tooling is actively drilling precise central holes into white, round osmotic tablets moving along a green conveyor belt. A plaque on the machine reads: "MDU Rohtak - Notched Tooling Tech," "Patent Granted," and lists the inventors: "K.S. Tiwari, M. Garg, Guided by H. Dureja." The background shows blurred laboratory glassware on shelves, signifying a research environment.

Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU) scientists achieved a major breakthrough. They secured a design patent for a new tablet manufacturing technique. This innovation directly affects the production of high-tech osmotic tablets.

New Tooling Cuts Production Costs

The MDU Pharmaceutical Sciences Department developed the technology. It uses notched tooling for standard tablet compression machines. This new tool creates the necessary hole in the tablet. The hole allows for controlled, constant drug release.

“This is a game-changer,” said a university spokesperson.

Expensive Lasers Become Obsolete

The pharmaceutical industry currently uses expensive laser drilling to create this orifice. This specialized step adds significant cost and time. The MDU team bypasses this costly process entirely.

Their notched tooling creates the precise hole during compression. This single-step method eliminates the need for extra laser equipment.

Faster, Cheaper Medication Delivery

The patented technology offers clear benefits:

  • Cost Reduction: Manufacturers save money on expensive machinery.
  • Time Savings: The process integrates drilling into the main production line.
  • Affordability: Reduced production costs can make complex drugs cheaper for patients.

Osmotic tablets treat chronic conditions. These include hypertension, diabetes, and ADHD. They rely on the small hole to deliver medication over many hours. This technology makes controlled-release dosage forms more accessible.

The team included Kirpa Shankar Tiwari, Professor Munish Garg, and Professor Harish Dureja. MDU’s research now promises to revolutionize the efficiency of tablet manufacturing worldwide.

COURT CLEARS SUN PHARMA TO EXPORT KEY WEIGHT LOSS DRUG; RESTRICTS INDIA SALE

by
Delhi High Court ruling in Sun Pharma versus Novo Nordisk patent dispute over the semaglutide drug (Ozempic/Wegovy) formulation.

The Delhi High Court today delivered a split verdict. It allowed Sun Pharmaceutical Industries to manufacture and export its version of the blockbuster drug semaglutide. However, the court strictly barred the company from selling the product in the domestic Indian market.

Court Upholds Patent Expiry Timeline

The decision is a major development in the pharmaceutical patent battle. Danish giant Novo Nordisk markets semaglutide globally. It is the active ingredient in its widely-used diabetes and weight-loss drugs, Ozempic and Wegovy.

Novo Nordisk sued Sun Pharma for patent infringement. The Danish company seeks to protect its secondary patent. This patent covers specific formulations and the delivery system of the drug. The patent remains valid until March 2026.

The court’s ruling respects this expiration date. It ordered Sun Pharma to refrain from all sales within India until the patent lapses.

Exports Allowed: A Win for Generics

Crucially, the court granted Sun Pharma permission to continue manufacturing. It also allowed exports to countries where Novo Nordisk does not hold patent protection.

This order mirrors a recent ruling against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL). Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard both cases. She had previously allowed DRL similar manufacturing and export rights.

Sun Pharma provided a formal undertaking to the court. The company will comply with the domestic sales ban. It will also provide the court with full details of its manufacturing and export accounts.

Evergreening Challenge Cited

The ongoing dispute centers on the validity of Novo Nordisk’s secondary patent. Generic makers argue the patent constitutes evergreening.

Evergreening is a common practice. Companies attempt to extend their patent monopoly. They secure new patents on minor modifications to an existing drug.

The Indian Patents Act, specifically Section 3(d), prohibits this. This section denies patents for new forms of a known substance. The new form must show a significant enhancement in therapeutic efficacy.

The court noted that Sun Pharma and DRL raised a “credible challenge” to the secondary patent’s validity. This legal challenge bolstered the generic companies’ position.

Market Impact: A Race for 2026

The ruling is a clear signal. It encourages Indian generic companies to prepare for market entry.

The global market for GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide is massive. Indian drug makers are now lining up to launch their generic versions.

The ban on domestic sales protects Novo Nordisk’s current market exclusivity. Yet, the export green light allows generic firms to gain a foothold. This prepares them for a competitive domestic launch in March 2026.

Novo Nordisk still holds an advantage in the Indian market. It recently cut the price of its product, Wegovy. This move increases competition against rivals like Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro.

Novo Nordisk has indicated it intends to appeal the court’s earlier decision in the DRL case. The legal battle for the lucrative weight-loss drug market will continue.

Korea Neuromorphic Chip Patent Growth: Secures Global Second Spot

by
diagram of a neuromorphic chip architecture mimicking the human brain

South Korea secured a significant global ranking. The nation stands second worldwide in neuromorphic chip patent growth. These chips are crucial for the next generation of artificial intelligence.

PATENT GROWTH EXPLODES

Korea’s growth rate reached 39.1%. This spans a 22-year period. Officials analyzed data from 2003 to 2024. This growth places Korea right behind China. China’s growth rate was 39.3%. The United States, China, the EU, and Japan also submitted data. These nations form the IP5 group.

Korea also boasts high application volume. It ranks third globally in total applications. The nation filed 702 patents. The US leads the world with 1,528 filings. China holds second place with 839 applications.

KOREAN FIRMS DOMINATE TOP 10

Korean corporations show strong technological leadership. Four institutions appear in the global top 10 list.

  • Samsung Electronics ranks highest. It secured the third overall spot. The firm filed 183 patents.
  • The Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) followed. It holds the sixth position with 85 filings.
  • SK hynix came in seventh. It filed 84 applications.
  • Seoul National University also made the list. The university ranked ninth with 56 filings.

Globally, IBM and Qualcomm led the individual applicant rankings.

CHIPS MIMIC THE HUMAN BRAIN

Neuromorphic semiconductors mimic the human brain. They copy the brain’s neural network structure. This design allows for computations with lower power consumption. They use less power than traditional methods.

Experts expect wide adoption of the technology. Key application fields include Autonomous Driving and intelligent robots. They will also impact biometric recognition and medical diagnostics.

The market is set for massive growth. Last year, the market value was $28.5 million. Analysts project huge expansion by 2030. They forecast a market size of $1.3252 billion. This reflects an average annual growth rate of 89.7%.

Delhi High Court Restores Trademark Infringement Suit

by
Delhi High Court building at dusk with overlaid text: "Trademark Ruling" and "Jurisdiction Restored," symbolizing the Kohinoor Seed vs Veda Seed case.

The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench restored the trademark infringement suit filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. against Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier order by a Single Judge that had returned the plaint due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Court held that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within Delhi’s jurisdiction, thereby allowing the suit to proceed on its merits.

Key Grounds for Restoring Jurisdiction

The Division Bench identified two primary factors that conferred territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court:

  1. Registration of Trademarks in Delhi:
    • Kohinoor Seed’s registered trademarks, “TADAAKHA” and “SADANAND”, were registered in Delhi.
    • The Court held that the mere fact that the asserted marks were registered within the jurisdiction of the High Court was a factor that, by itself, entitled the appellant to institute the suit in Delhi.
  2. Execution of Marketing Agreement in Delhi:
    • The non-exclusive co-marketing agreement, which was at the heart of the dispute, was executed in New Delhi. This agreement allowed Veda Seed to market Kohinoor’s seeds under the marks (including the unregistered mark “BASANT”) until it expired in 2022.
    • The Court ruled that since the agreement formed an integral part of the cause of action—as the alleged infringement occurred after the agreement’s termination and involved marks initially licensed—the Court within whose jurisdiction the agreement was executed has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

Details of the Dispute

  • Kohinoor’s Marks: Registered trademarks “TADAAKHA” and “SADANAND”, and unregistered mark “BASANT”, all used for cotton hybrid seeds.
  • Veda Seed’s Allegedly Infringing Marks: “VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD BG II,” “VEDA SADANAND GOLD BG II,” and “VEDA BASANT GOLD BG II.”
  • Background: The parties had a co-marketing agreement from 2014 to 2022. Post-termination, Kohinoor alleged that Veda Seed began selling its own seeds using deceptively similar marks.
  • Single Judge’s View (Set Aside): The Single Judge had accepted Veda Seed’s argument that its operations were limited to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and that online listings (on IndiaMart/Kalgudi) were insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
  • Division Bench’s View on Online Listings: The Division Bench observed that the question of Veda Seed’s direct or indirect involvement in the online listings of the allegedly infringing goods was a matter that required a full trial and could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage.

The Division Bench, therefore, allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order, and restored the trademark infringement suit to be heard on its merits.

CNIPA GUI Patent Guidelines: New Rules for China Design IP

by
Smartphone with a Graphical User Interface (GUI) to illustrate the new CNIPA partial design patent guidelines in China.

China has updated its rules for design patents. This move focuses on Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs).

The country’s Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued the new guidelines.

What Is New?

The new rules are very specific. They aim to improve the quality of GUI patent applications.

  • Product is Key: A GUI must be shown on a physical product. Examples are a phone or a car screen.
  • Icons are Not Enough: A simple icon alone cannot get a patent. It must be part of an interactive product.
  • Interaction is a Must: The design must involve human interaction. It must do something when a user clicks or swipes.
  • Exclusions: Wallpaper, boot screens, and game interfaces are generally not protectable. They are not considered interactive.
  • Partial Protection: You can protect only a part of a GUI. But that part must be a complete design unit.

Why Does This Matter for India?

Indian tech and software companies often sell to China. They file patents there.

These stricter rules mean Indian firms must change their strategy. Patent applications must be very precise. They need to clearly link the GUI to a product’s function.

This change highlights the growing importance of design IP in global tech. Indian companies must update their filings quickly. They need to meet the high new standards set by China.

Godavari Biorefineries Secures US Patent for Cancer-Fighting Compounds; Stock Soars

by

Godavari Biorefineries Limited (GBL) has achieved a major scientific and strategic breakthrough. The company has secured a United States patent for a new class of cancer-fighting compounds designed to inhibit unregulated cell growth. These compounds show strong potential against cancer stem cells, a highly resistant category of cancer-driving cells.

The announcement sparked immediate excitement in the market. GBL’s stock surged nearly 17–18% in early trade as investors responded to what could become a transformative development for the company and for cancer research in India. The rally underscores growing investor confidence in the company’s expanding biotechnology capabilities.

A closer look at the patented science

The patented invention, titled “Compounds for the Inhibition of Unregulated Cell Growth,” gives GBL exclusive rights in the United States to produce, license, and commercialize the molecules.

According to the patent filing, the compounds demonstrate targeted action against cancer stem cells (CSCs). This is a small but powerful subset of tumour cells that fuel the growth, recurrence, and spread of cancer. CSCs are often responsible for treatment resistance, which is why many cancers return even after chemotherapy or radiation.

The patent includes compounds listed across multiple novel chemical formulae. Laboratory studies indicate promising results against breast and prostate cancer cell lines. These two cancer types remain among the most prevalent globally, making the discovery especially significant.

What makes the patented approach compelling is its precision. Traditional anti-cancer treatments target rapidly dividing cells, but they often miss slow-dividing or dormant CSCs. By attacking the core drivers of tumour regeneration, these molecules could one day lead to therapies that significantly reduce relapse rates.

A growing global footprint in cancer innovation

The US patent builds on GBL’s accelerating global presence in advanced cancer research. Earlier this year, the company secured a European patent for a similar anti-cancer molecule. The validation extended across Spain, the United Kingdom, and several European Union member nations, boosting the company’s intellectual-property coverage across major regulatory regions.

The company also received a Chinese patent earlier this year for another breakthrough anti-cancer compound known for inhibiting cancer cell proliferation and targeting CSCs. Preclinical research highlighted its strong activity against breast and prostate cancer lines, adding another high-value asset to its growing research portfolio.

To support its expansion, GBL has also established a dedicated subsidiary in the United States. This move positions the company to engage directly with the world’s largest pharmaceutical market and collaborate with global research institutions and biotech partners.

Why this matters: opportunities on the horizon

A breakthrough for Indian bioresearch

Securing a US patent in the oncology domain is a rare achievement for an Indian company. It signals that GBL is not just a leader in the biorefinery and biofuel sectors but is evolving into a serious contender in medical biotechnology.

Promising pathway toward targeted therapies

If future research validates the patented molecules, they could form the foundation for next-generation cancer drugs that destroy tumour-regenerating cells. Targeting CSCs represents one of the most ambitious goals in cancer science. Successful therapies in this space could dramatically reshape cancer treatment outcomes.

Attractive for global collaborations

The company’s expanding patent portfolio across three major regions — the US, Europe, and China — places it in a powerful position. Pharmaceutical giants often seek partnerships with early-stage innovators who hold strong patents. GBL could attract licensing deals, co-development agreements, or investment partnerships as its molecules advance.

Market confidence and investor traction

The sharp rise in the stock price reflects more than short-term excitement. Investors see growing scientific depth, diversified business potential, and long-term value creation opportunities driven by high-impact IP.

The challenges ahead: long journey to the clinic

Despite the breakthrough, the patented molecules are still in early-stage development. A patent protects the innovation, but it does not guarantee clinical success.

To become approved cancer therapies, the compounds must pass through multiple stages:

  • Preclinical safety testing
  • Toxicology assessments
  • Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies
  • Phase I, II, and III human trials
  • Regulatory approvals in each market

Oncology drug development is expensive and time-intensive. Success rates are low, and many promising compounds fail due to toxicity or lack of efficacy. GBL may require strategic partnerships, research collaborations, or significant investment to advance the molecules through clinical trials.

A milestone moment — and the beginning of a new chapter

Godavari Biorefineries’ US patent win marks a bold moment for Indian innovation. The company is rapidly expanding beyond its traditional identity as a biorefinery pioneer. With patents across the world’s largest markets, GBL is positioning itself as a future player in global oncology research.

If the science progresses well, this breakthrough could transform not only the company’s trajectory but also contribute to a new generation of targeted cancer therapies. The recognition, the rising investor confidence, and the global IP strategy together point to a powerful new chapter in India’s biotech evolution.

Delhi High Court Rejects Interim Patent Block on Semaglutide, Calls Out ‘Evergreening’ Tactics

by

The Delhi High Court has delivered a decisive order in the high-stakes battle over semaglutide, the blockbuster diabetes and weight-loss drug. The court refused to grant Novo Nordisk a temporary injunction against Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), dealing a major blow to the Danish pharmaceutical giant’s attempt to control the Indian market until 2026. The ruling carries far-reaching implications for patent strategy, market competition, and the future of GLP-1 drugs in India.

The court held that DRL had raised a “credible challenge” to Novo Nordisk’s second patent on semaglutide. It found strong indicators of double-patenting, a practice that Indian law treats as an attempt to “evergreen” expired monopolies. The court’s message was clear: companies cannot use secondary patents to prolong control over blockbuster drugs.

Two Patents, One Molecule: How the Dispute Began

Novo Nordisk held two Indian patents related to semaglutide:

  1. Composition Patent (IN 275964)
    This patent covered the semaglutide molecule itself. It expired in September 2024, opening the door for generic manufacturing.
  2. Formulation Patent (IN 262697)
    This patent claims a specific formulation and delivery system for the same drug. It remains valid until March 2026.

When the core composition patent lapsed, DRL secured regulatory approval from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) to manufacture semaglutide for export. The approval triggered immediate friction. Novo Nordisk rushed to court, claiming that the formulation patent protected not only the delivery mechanism but effectively covered the drug.

It sought an emergency injunction to stop DRL’s manufacturing and export operations. The company argued that any commercial activity—even export—would cause irreparable harm.

The Court’s Ruling: A Firm Stand Against Evergreening

Justice Anish Dayal rejected the injunction request. The court held that DRL’s objections to the formulation patent were strong enough to deny temporary relief to Novo Nordisk.

1. Double-Patenting Concern

The court noted that the formulation patent appeared to reclaim the same invention for which Novo Nordisk’s composition patent had already expired. The claims overlapped heavily.

This amounted to “evergreening”—a tactic where pharmaceutical companies file secondary patents to extend monopoly periods.

Indian patent law, especially after Section 3(d), firmly discourages such strategies.

2. Lack of Inventive Step

The court observed that Novo Nordisk’s claimed improvements in the formulation patent did not appear novel or non-obvious.
The modifications were routine optimizations well known in pharmaceutical science. They did not represent a genuine leap in innovation.

This significantly weakened the validity of the formulation patent.

3. Balance of Convenience Favoured DRL

Since the core patent had expired, the court held that public interest and market competition must be prioritized.

Blocking DRL without conclusive proof of infringement would be unfair, especially when DRL was manufacturing the drug only for export markets.

Exports Allowed, But Indian Market Stays Closed—for Now

The court made a nuanced distinction. DRL may:

  • continue manufacturing semaglutide, and
  • export it freely to international markets.

However, domestic sales remain prohibited until the formulation patent expires in March 2026, unless the patent is invalidated earlier.

This split ruling reinforces India’s position as the world’s largest exporter of affordable generics, while still respecting valid patent rights inside the country.

A Major Win for Generic Manufacturers

The decision strengthens the confidence of Indian pharmaceutical companies entering high-value therapeutic categories. Semaglutide, widely used for Type-2 diabetes and explosive global demand for weight-loss treatments, represents one of the most lucrative drug classes today.

DRL is not alone. Cipla, Sun Pharma, Biocon, and Mankind Pharma are exploring GLP-1 opportunities. The Delhi HC’s ruling sends a bold signal: secondary patents will face strict scrutiny.

Indian courts have repeatedly warned against evergreening. This judgment continues that legacy, following similar rulings in the cases of imatinib, sofosbuvir, and darunavir.

Why This Case Matters Globally

The global pharmaceutical industry is watching India closely. Semaglutide is one of the world’s most valuable drugs, powering Novo Nordisk’s meteoric rise in recent years.

A single ruling from an Indian court can influence:

  • global supply chains,
  • generic entry timelines,
  • price dynamics across continents.

India produces nearly 40% of the world’s generics. Any shift in the patent landscape here disrupts international markets.

By allowing export manufacturing, the court has opened a potential pipeline of affordable semaglutide to emerging markets struggling with diabetes and obesity crises.

What Happens Next?

Novo Nordisk has several options:

  • Appeal before a division bench of the Delhi High Court.
  • Initiate a full trial to defend the validity of the formulation patent.
  • Seek tighter regulatory restrictions on generic manufacturing.

DRL, meanwhile, may accelerate export production and explore challenging the patent’s validity to unlock the domestic market earlier.

Legal experts expect this case to set an important precedent for future GLP-1 patent disputes, especially as rival companies race to launch their own weight-loss drugs.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s rejection of Novo Nordisk’s interim injunction is a striking affirmation of India’s sharp stance against patent evergreening. The ruling protects open competition, enables affordable access through exports, and reinforces India’s leadership in generic pharmaceuticals.

As demand for semaglutide surges worldwide, the judgment could reshape the global supply chain for one of modern medicine’s most influential drug classes.

The Patent Paradox: Why India’s Startup Filing Surge is 83% Failure and All About Optics

by
Fragile gold patent scroll on a precarious foundation, with the number 83% failure rate overlaid, symbolizing the optical illusion of India's startup patent filing surge.

A deep dive into the intellectual property (IP) landscape of India’s booming startup sector reveals a critical gap between ambition and execution, suggesting that the much-lauded surge in patent filings is predominantly a tactical exercise in investor signalling rather than a genuine marker of technological innovation. The core issue, critics argue, is a “crisis of intent” where patents function as “decorative rather than functional” assets.   

While global bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have celebrated India’s rapid ascent—the WIPO 2024 report noted a phenomenal 15.7% growth in patent applications in 2023, positioning the country 6th globally with 64,480 filings —the internal data paints a sobering picture of weak follow-through.   

The Data Gap: 83% of Startup Patents Fail to Secure a Grant

Analysis of the startup patent pipeline from 2021 through 2025 reveals a profound drop-off rate, demonstrating that the vast majority of filings are not carried through to completion.   

During this five-year period, Indian startups filed a robust 13,089 patent applications. Yet, only 2,174 of these successfully navigated the examination process to achieve the grant stage. This results in a grant success rate of barely 16.6%, meaning approximately one out of every six startup filings becomes an enforceable, proprietary asset.   

The failure rate is compounded by active abandonment. Nearly 500 startup patent applications were explicitly withdrawn or abandoned early, often due to the filers failing to complete detailed specifications or respond to subsequent office actions required by the Patent Office.   

This pattern extends beyond patents. Startups filed 44,517 trademark applications during the same period, with over 1,300 subsequently abandoned. Analysts suggest this widespread non-prosecution across IP types confirms that the primary function of the filing is “brand optics” rather than a rigorous, long-term IP strategy. The high volume of dropped applications confirms that for many, the intent was temporary and instrumental: the patent filing was merely a transaction used to secure funding, not an investment in an enduring intellectual asset.   

Investor Mandate: Patents as Pitch Deck Tools

The distortion in filing behaviour is traced back to the venture capital (VC) ecosystem’s preference for strong valuation narratives. In competitive fundraising rounds, a pending patent application, particularly a cheap and fast provisional filing, serves as a high-visibility proxy for technological differentiation and market moat potential.   

A provisional patent application, which secures an immediate priority date, is leveraged as a “fast, affordable way to strengthen a fundraising narrative” and “create the appearance of a breakthrough innovation”. This mechanism enables a “Capital first, commitment later” ethos.   

The systemic issue is rooted in the fact that investors often prioritize the inclusion of an IP slide over demanding proof of prosecution commitment or demonstrated R&D investment. As the analysis notes, “Once the funding round closes, priorities may shift,” leading to a predictable loss of enthusiasm for the labour-intensive and expensive work required to turn provisional filings into complete specifications. This rational response by founders—underinvesting in expensive, long-term R&D in favour of cheap, high-volume filing tactics—systematically shifts resources away from core innovation.   

Structural Deficiency: India’s R&D Investment Stagnation

The crisis of intent at the startup level is underpinned by a deep, structural R&D deficit at the national level. The commitment to deep, foundational research necessary to generate truly novel and patentable inventions remains structurally low in India.   

Official data from the Department of Science & Technology (DST) confirms that India’s Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) as a percentage of GDP stood at 0.64% during the fiscal year 2020–21, having remained stagnant between 0.6% and 0.7% in the preceding years (0.66% in 2018–19 and 2019–20).   

This figure is significantly “below global average and lower than countries like China, South Korea and US”. This structural weakness is compounded by low private sector contribution, which accounted for only 36.4% of the total GERD in 2020–21, in sharp contrast to innovation-leading nations where private industry drives over 70% of R&D expenditure.   

This macro-level underinvestment directly correlates with the micro-level deficiencies, as most startups lack “dedicated research teams, technical drafting expertise, prior-art assessment systems, and time for iterative processes” necessary for rigorous patent prosecution.   

Policy Flaw: Incentives Reward Filing, Not Granting

Current government policies designed to stimulate IP activity, while successful in boosting filing volume, have inadvertently intensified the focus on volume over quality. The government successfully implemented significant fee concessions, including an 80% reduction in patent filing fees for startups, MSMEs, and educational institutions.   

However, the design flaw is that these incentives are tied to the input stage (filing) rather than the output stage (grant or commercialization). By heavily subsidizing the initial filing, the state inadvertently subsidizes the creation of the fundraising narrative for VCs. Once the provisional application is lodged, the startup has secured its priority date and the narrative benefit, but the subsequent costly work of prosecution remains unassisted, cementing the low-commitment behaviour.   

Blueprint for Genuine Innovation: Shifting from Decoration to Depth

To foster genuine innovation and correct the systemic inefficiencies, experts advocate for a strategic overhaul of incentives and infrastructure.   

  • Realign Incentives: Government benefits, including subsidies and fast-track examination provisions, must be decoupled from the act of filing and strategically tied to demonstrable outcomes, such as patent grants, successful long-term renewal, or demonstrable commercial utilization.   
  • Enhance Capacity: Urgent investment in the Patent Office is mandatory, including expansion of examiner capacity and specialized domain expertise. There is a pronounced need for more technically specialized patent officers, particularly in cutting-edge technological areas like AI, biotech, semiconductors, climate-tech, and advanced manufacturing.   
  • Strengthen R&D Culture: The government should offer targeted, co-funded grants and innovation-linked incentives for startups that demonstrate a commitment to establishing and maintaining dedicated R&D teams or formalized collaboration with research institutions.   
  • Promote Co-patenting: Actively promoting policy frameworks that encourage joint patent filings (co-patenting) between startups and premier academic/research institutions, such as the IITs and national labs, would guarantee a higher technical standard for the filings and create structured pathways for knowledge transfer.   

The conclusion remains clear: for India to genuinely transition from an IP volume leader to a global innovation power, the focus must shift from decorative filings to functional intellectual assets. Only then can “depth replace decoration” and solidify India’s reputation as a serious, quality-driven innovation hub.