NCLAT Rules CCI Has No Power to Probe Patented Drug Disputes

by


In a landmark judgment, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has no authority to investigate anti-competitive allegations involving patented products. The tribunal upheld the closure of a case filed against Swiss drugmaker Vifor International AG, marking a key precedent in the ongoing debate between competition law and patent rights.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when Swapna Dey, a complainant, accused Vifor International of abusing its dominant position by making its patented drug, Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM), unaffordable and inaccessible. The FCM injection is widely used for treating Iron Deficiency Anaemia (IDA), a condition affecting millions in India.

In October 2022, the CCI closed the case, stating there was no prima facie evidence of abuse of dominance under Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The complainant later appealed this decision before the NCLAT.

NCLAT’s Key Findings

The appellate tribunal observed that Vifor’s product was protected by a valid patent under the Patents Act, 1970. It ruled that once a product enjoys patent protection, the CCI cannot question the manner in which the patent rights are exercised.

The bench relied on Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, which explicitly exempts actions taken to protect intellectual property rights from being treated as anti-competitive. The tribunal noted that the Patents Act is a “self-contained code” for regulating patent rights and related disputes.

NCLAT clarified that the Patent Act prevails in cases where allegations arise from the use or pricing of a patented product. Hence, CCI’s jurisdiction does not extend to such matters.

Patent Expiry and Market Impact

The tribunal also pointed out that Vifor’s patent for FCM expired on October 21, 2023. After expiry, generic drugmakers are free to enter the market, ensuring competition and lower prices.

This observation further supported NCLAT’s view that during the patent’s validity period, the patent law framework—not competition law—should govern disputes involving pricing or supply.

Industry and Legal Implications

The judgment delivers a strong message on the separation of powers between patent law and competition law in India. Legal experts believe it reinforces the rights of patent holders while limiting the scope of antitrust intervention during the patent term.

Pharmaceutical companies see the ruling as a protective precedent that safeguards innovation and patent exclusivity. However, public health advocates warn that it could restrict regulatory tools available to address high drug prices and limited access during the patent period.

The decision may also push policymakers to reconsider the interface between IP law and competition law, especially in the pharmaceutical sector where affordability and innovation must coexist.

Global Context

In contrast to the NCLAT’s stance, courts in the European Union and United States have occasionally allowed antitrust authorities to intervene when patent rights are allegedly used to block competition. The European Court of Justice, in the AstraZeneca case, held that misleading actions to delay generics could amount to abuse of dominance.

India’s latest ruling, however, takes a more conservative approach by prioritizing patent protection over competition concerns, at least while a patent remains valid.

What Lies Ahead

The ruling may be challenged in higher courts, but for now, it sets a clear precedent. The CCI will likely refrain from investigating conduct involving patented products unless a broader market abuse beyond patent rights is proven.

As India continues to balance innovation incentives with public access to medicines, this judgment could shape future disputes in the fast-growing pharmaceutical sector.

Japan Patent Office Rejects Nintendo Patent Linked to Palworld Dispute

by

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) has rejected one of Nintendo’s key patent applications related to the ongoing Palworld dispute. The decision marks a setback for Nintendo as it continues its legal efforts against Palworld developer Pocketpair.

Patent Application Rejected

The rejected application, numbered 2024-031879, is part of Nintendo’s “monster capture” patent family. The patent was among several Nintendo filings believed to support its legal claims against Pocketpair. However, the JPO ruled that the invention lacked an inventive step. In other words, the claimed concept was considered obvious when compared with earlier games and technologies.

Prior Games Influenced the Decision

According to the JPO, existing games such as ARK: Survival Evolved, Monster Hunter 4, and Craftopia already featured similar mechanics. The examiner concluded that Nintendo’s claims did not present enough novelty or creativity to justify a new patent. This conclusion significantly weakens the company’s argument that its gameplay systems were unique innovations.

Legal Context and Options

Nintendo can still respond to the decision. It may amend the claims to address the examiner’s objections or appeal to the JPO’s appeals board. The company also has the option to abandon the rejected application while maintaining its other patents in the same family.

The rejection does not directly impact Nintendo’s other active patents, including JP7493117 and JP7545191, which are currently cited in the Palworld litigation. However, it raises questions about the overall strength of Nintendo’s patent strategy in this case.

Implications for the Palworld Case

For Pocketpair, this decision provides indirect support. While the rejection does not automatically win the lawsuit for the Palworld creator, it helps build an argument that Nintendo’s patents lack originality. It may also influence the Tokyo District Court, where the main legal battle continues under Judge Motoyuki Nakashima.

Industry Reaction

Analysts say the JPO’s decision reflects growing scrutiny over broad patent claims in the gaming industry. Patent offices now demand stronger evidence of originality, especially when game mechanics overlap with existing titles.

The rejection could also encourage developers to rethink how they protect in-game features and mechanics. Instead of relying on general gameplay ideas, future patents may need to focus on more technical or specific innovations.

What Comes Next

Nintendo has not yet commented publicly on the decision. Legal experts expect the company to continue defending its broader patent portfolio in the ongoing court case. A final ruling in the Palworld dispute is not expected before 2026.

The JPO’s decision underscores a shifting trend in intellectual property law for the gaming sector—one that prioritizes innovation over repetition.

Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes–Atomberg Patent Case to Bombay High Court

by

The Supreme Court of India has ordered the transfer of the ongoing patent infringement dispute between Eureka Forbes Limited and Atomberg Technologies Private Limited from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court. The apex court took this step to prevent duplication of proceedings and avoid conflicting judgments on overlapping issues.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the ruling. The court found that both companies had initiated separate but related legal actions concerning the same patented technology used in Atomberg’s “Intellon” water purifier.

Background of the Dispute

Atomberg launched its Intellon water purifier on June 20, 2025. Soon after, the company filed a suit in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging groundless threats of patent infringement from Eureka Forbes.

Eureka Forbes responded by filing a patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2025, invoking Section 104 of the Patents Act. The company claimed Atomberg had violated its patent rights related to water purification technology.

The key issue was jurisdiction. Eureka Forbes argued that Delhi had jurisdiction because an online purchase and delivery of Atomberg’s product took place there. Atomberg countered that both companies’ registered offices were in Mumbai, and that the Bombay High Court was already hearing its first-filed suit on the same matter.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court agreed with Atomberg’s position. It noted that although the two cases were filed under different provisions of the Patents Act, the facts, evidence, and central questions were substantially identical.

The bench emphasized that allowing the cases to continue in separate courts could lead to conflicting decisions. It ruled that the Delhi High Court’s suit should be transferred to the Bombay High Court for joint consideration.

The Court further observed that the Delhi suit’s jurisdiction was based solely on a single online transaction, while the bulk of corporate activity and the first suit were linked to Mumbai.

Court’s Direction

The Supreme Court directed that the Delhi case be transferred immediately to the Bombay High Court. It also instructed both parties to seek an early hearing on the pending injunction applications to ensure swift resolution.

With this order, Atomberg’s transfer petition was allowed, and Eureka Forbes’ counter-petition seeking to move Atomberg’s case to Delhi was dismissed.

Legal and Industry Implications

The judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s effort to promote judicial efficiency and consistency in intellectual property litigation. It reinforces that when two suits involve the same facts and parties, the first-filed suit will often determine the proper jurisdiction.

The ruling also clarifies that online sales or deliveries alone do not automatically grant jurisdiction to a particular court if the primary connection and business operations lie elsewhere.

This case will likely serve as a precedent for future patent disputes, especially in the technology and consumer electronics sectors where companies frequently operate across multiple jurisdictions.

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Refusal of Pharmacyclics Application

by

The Calcutta High Court has overturned the Indian Patent Office’s (IPO) refusal of a divisional patent application filed by Pharmacyclics LLC, a U.S.-based biopharmaceutical company. The ruling reaffirms that divisional applications in India can be valid even if their claims differ from the parent application, as long as they find support in the original specification.

Court Restores Fair Examination

The case involved Pharmacyclics’ divisional application concerning a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, used in combination therapies for cancer treatment. The IPO had earlier rejected the application, saying the divisional claims were not disclosed in the parent application’s claims and that the shift from method to product claims made it invalid.

However, the Calcutta High Court found that the IPO’s stance was inconsistent. In the first office action, the examiner had accepted the divisional as maintainable. Later, during the hearing stage, the IPO reversed its position and rejected the application on procedural grounds.

Justice observed that such a sudden change violated the principle of natural justice. Once the IPO accepted maintainability, it was obliged to proceed with substantive examination on merits instead of questioning the divisional’s validity.

Specification Support Is Key

The Court also clarified that Section 16 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 does not restrict divisional claims to those identical to the parent application. What matters, it said, is that the divisional claims are “fairly based” on the complete specification of the parent.

Citing earlier precedents such as Syngenta Crop Protection AG v Controller of Patents and Designs, the Court reaffirmed that divisional applications can stand on their own if supported by the parent disclosure, even when their claims vary in scope or type.

Fresh Review Ordered

The Court set aside the IPO’s refusal order and directed it to re-examine the divisional application on substantive grounds, such as novelty and inventive step. It also instructed the office to ensure that applicants receive consistent and transparent treatment during prosecution.

Broader Impact on Patent Practice

This ruling strengthens the position of patent applicants in India, especially in the pharmaceutical and life-sciences sector, where divisional filings are common to protect different aspects of complex inventions.

Experts say the decision promotes procedural fairness and aligns Indian patent practice with global standards. It also encourages applicants to draft comprehensive specifications that can support multiple claim sets for future divisional filings.

While the ruling applies directly to this case, it is expected to influence other High Courts and the IPO’s approach to divisional patents in ongoing and future cases.

Novo Nordisk and D Young Defend Key Patent for Oral Semaglutide Tablet

by

Novo Nordisk and its legal team at D Young & Co are defending a crucial patent for the tablet version of semaglutide, the active ingredient used in the blockbuster diabetes and weight-loss drugs Rybelsus, Ozempic, and Wegovy. The patent dispute has gained global attention as it could determine the future of oral semaglutide’s market exclusivity.

Patent Dispute at the European Patent Office

The case centers on European Patent No. 2 827 885, which covers Novo Nordisk’s innovative oral formulation of semaglutide. The company claimed a unique two-granule system designed to improve absorption of the peptide drug in tablet form. One granule type contains semaglutide, while the other holds an absorption enhancer called SNAC (sodium N-(8-(2-hydroxybenzoyl)amino) caprylate).

This separation, according to Novo Nordisk, allows the drug to dissolve effectively and remain stable through the digestive process. However, the European Patent Office (EPO) Board of Appeal revoked the patent, ruling that it lacked an inventive step. The Board concluded that Novo Nordisk’s design was too similar to earlier known formulations and did not demonstrate a clear technical advantage across all claims.

Legal and Market Implications

The loss of this patent weakens Novo Nordisk’s intellectual property position in Europe. It may allow generic drug manufacturers to move closer to producing their own oral versions of semaglutide once other protections expire.

Despite the setback, Novo Nordisk still holds a series of related patents protecting semaglutide’s composition, dosage methods, and manufacturing processes in multiple countries. These patents could extend exclusivity into the early 2030s, particularly in the United States and select Asian markets.

A spokesperson from D Young & Co emphasized that Novo Nordisk “remains committed to defending its innovation portfolio” and continues to explore all legal and strategic options to preserve market exclusivity.

Why the Oral Formulation Matters

The tablet version of semaglutide, marketed as Rybelsus, represents a major scientific milestone. It allows patients to take the once-weekly GLP-1 therapy orally, eliminating the need for injections. This has significantly expanded the drug’s market reach and patient acceptance.

If generic competition enters earlier than expected, Novo Nordisk could face price erosion across its GLP-1 product range. Analysts note that even a modest loss in exclusivity for Rybelsus could impact billions in annual revenue, given the current surge in demand for semaglutide-based therapies worldwide.

Global Impact and Next Steps

In markets such as India and China, generic drugmakers are already preparing for opportunities in the oral semaglutide space. Industry experts expect these regions to play a key role in the next phase of the GLP-1 patent landscape.

Novo Nordisk may file divisional or secondary patents to reinforce protection of its technology. The company also retains regulatory data exclusivity in several jurisdictions, offering temporary protection even without patent coverage.

Outlook

While the EPO’s ruling marks a setback, Novo Nordisk’s dominance in the GLP-1 market remains strong. Its pipeline of next-generation weight-management and diabetes drugs continues to grow. However, the patent decision highlights a growing challenge for pharmaceutical leaders — maintaining long-term protection for complex formulations as global demand and generic pressure intensify.

Conversational AI reshapes global commerce

by

Conversational artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how consumers shop and interact with brands. As voice-driven and chat-based shopping tools spread across technology and retail industries, the patents behind this innovation are drawing major attention.

Inventor Stephen Byrd, founder of Voicee LLC, has emerged as a key figure in this movement. His portfolio of foundational patents in conversational AI commerce is being recognized as a cornerstone of the growing market.

Voicee patents validated internationally

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has issued a written opinion confirming the novelty and inventiveness of ten core claims in Byrd’s patent family. The validation strengthens Voicee’s intellectual property position across multiple jurisdictions.

According to the company, these patents cover the entire AI commerce pipeline—from identifying products inside content to generating voice-based or chat-based purchase offers. The portfolio is being described as a “defensive patent thicket” designed to protect the future of conversational transactions.

Retail and tech giants embrace conversational shopping

Voicee’s announcement coincides with a surge in AI-powered retail experiences. Walmart’s partnership with OpenAI to build a generative-AI shopping assistant highlights how voice and chat interfaces are reshaping digital retail.

Industry observers say this boom in AI commerce validates Byrd’s early vision. “Stephen Byrd’s inventions anticipated how conversational systems would merge shopping and interaction,” said Voicee in its statement. The company claims its patent-pending technologies align closely with new retail tools now entering the market.

Patent auction begins amid rising demand

Voicee has launched a patent auction for exclusive sector-specific licenses. Interested companies can bid for rights to use the patented technologies within their industries.

The auction closes on December 2, 2025, and covers key areas such as retail, e-commerce, and digital marketing. Voicee says the goal is to create strategic partnerships while ensuring fair access to its protected technologies.

Global implications for AI and retail

The rise of conversational AI commerce is reshaping digital ecosystems. Tech giants, retailers, and startups are investing heavily in voice-driven assistants and chat-based sales systems.

Industry experts note that Byrd’s patents could become central to future licensing discussions, especially as conversational commerce becomes a standard part of consumer engagement.

While the full commercial impact remains to be seen, the validation of Voicee’s patents marks a significant milestone in AI-powered retail technology. The ongoing auction signals how intellectual property will play a decisive role in the next phase of AI innovation.

American Clean Energy Faces Growing Patent Pressure from Foreign Rivals

by

The United States clean energy industry is feeling the heat from foreign patent competition, as global innovation accelerates in solar, wind, and battery technologies. A new report by OilPrice.com warns that foreign firms, particularly from China, are reshaping the intellectual property (IP) landscape and squeezing U.S. players out of key technology domains.

Growth Slows Across Renewable Sectors

U.S. clean energy capacity is projected to grow only 7 percent in 2025 — the weakest rate in over a decade. Wind power is expected to expand just 1.8 percent, its slowest growth since 2010. Analysts attribute this slowdown to a mix of policy delays, permitting hurdles, and competitive patent claims that make domestic expansion more complex.

Offshore wind projects have faced funding cuts and regulatory freezes, further eroding investor confidence in American renewables.

Foreign Patents Redefining Innovation Boundaries

The article highlights a surge in patent filings by non-U.S. firms. Chinese, European, and Canadian companies now dominate patent registries in core clean energy technologies such as solar cells, energy storage, and grid efficiency systems.

This trend complicates efforts by U.S. companies to secure exclusive rights or defend against infringement suits. Many of the latest clean energy innovations are born outside the United States, where U.S. patent examiners struggle to verify prior art or challenge overlapping claims.

Ongoing Legal Battles Intensify

Recent court cases illustrate the deepening patent conflict.

  • Tigo Energy and SMA Solar Technology reached a settlement over rapid shutdown systems for solar installations.
  • Maxeon Solar Technologies has sued Canadian Solar and other firms for allegedly infringing its TOPCon solar cell patents.

Such disputes underscore the rising legal costs and strategic risks facing American renewable energy manufacturers.

China’s Lead in Clean Energy Technology

China’s rapid clean energy growth adds pressure on U.S. companies. The country has not only scaled up solar and wind manufacturing but also unveiled the world’s first operational thorium reactor — a symbol of its advanced energy ambitions.

Chinese firms enjoy state subsidies, integrated supply chains, and broad patent portfolios that strengthen their global influence. Industry experts warn that this combination could limit U.S. access to critical technologies and components.

Patent System Under Strain

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) faces increasing difficulty handling foreign-dominated innovation landscapes. Examiners often lack access to non-U.S. databases and prior art in languages like Chinese or Korean.

Legal experts suggest American firms must adapt by narrowing patent claims, improving defensive IP strategies, and pursuing international licensing or joint ventures.

Outlook: Balancing Innovation and Protection

As the U.S. races to meet its climate and energy goals, intellectual property strategy could become a key battleground. Strengthening domestic R&D, improving patent transparency, and streamlining approval processes are now critical to keeping pace with foreign competitors.

Analysts believe that without decisive action, the United States risks losing not only technological leadership but also control over the future of global clean energy.

Samsung Files Patent for Self-Healing Foldable Display

by

Samsung continues to push the boundaries of smartphone innovation. The company has filed a new patent that describes a self-healing foldable display designed to protect delicate areas such as the camera, fingerprint sensor, and internal screen layers.

A Smarter Way to Protect Foldable Screens

According to the patent report, Samsung’s design uses a smart sensing structure that can detect and respond to damage on the display. Two ultra-thin wires are placed in separate layers around cutouts for sensors and cameras. These wires work together to sense cracks or damage forming near these critical regions.

When a microcrack is detected, the system can trigger dummy metal patterns to strengthen the weak spot and stop the crack from spreading. This process acts like a built-in repair mechanism that prevents long-term damage to the screen.

Defense Against Moisture and Wear

Samsung’s design also adds microscopic grooves and protective sealants around the display area. These help block moisture and oxygen from entering the display layers. This extra protection could extend the lifespan of foldable phones, which often suffer from screen fatigue and air exposure after extended use.

Improving In-Display Fingerprint Sensors

The patent also highlights Samsung’s efforts to make in-display fingerprint sensors more reliable in foldable devices. Current foldable screens are thinner and more flexible, which makes it difficult to embed fingerprint modules without risking cracks or distortion. The new design aims to fix that by creating a more durable area around the sensor.

What Self-Healing Means

The “self-healing” technology in Samsung’s patent doesn’t mean the screen can completely repair itself. Instead, it focuses on early detection and containment of micro-damage. By reinforcing weak points in real time, the display can maintain its performance and prevent bigger failures.

Future of Foldable Durability

Samsung’s innovation comes at a time when durability remains a major concern for foldable phone users. If implemented, this technology could significantly improve screen longevity and reduce repair costs.

While the patent does not confirm when Samsung will use this feature, it shows the company’s strong focus on advancing foldable technology. The design could appear in future models of the Galaxy Z Fold or Z Flip series.

Samsung has not made an official statement about the patent yet. However, the concept reinforces the brand’s leadership in flexible display research and its goal to make foldable devices tougher and smarter.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Philips’ Video CD Patent Infringement Claim

by

Court says company failed to prove infringement; 21-year legal battle ends

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a 21-year-old patent infringement suit filed by Philips against a Delhi-based optical disc manufacturer. The court ruled that the electronics giant failed to prove that the defendants had infringed its patent related to Video CD (VCD) technology.

Philips had filed the case in 2004, alleging that BCI Optical Disc Limited and others had copied its patented system used in VCDs. The company claimed its technology covered a system involving a transmitter, receiver, and transmission medium used in encoding and decoding digital video content.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh, who heard the matter, held that Philips could not establish infringement of each element of its patent claim. The court said the plaintiff did not map the essential components of the patent to the processes used by the defendants.

Patent expired during litigation

The judgment noted that Philips’ patent had already expired in 2010, during the pendency of the case. The expiry meant that the company could no longer claim monopoly rights over the technology.

The court observed that even before expiry, Philips had not produced adequate technical evidence to prove that the defendants’ products or systems contained the same features as its patented invention.

“The plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants’ process incorporates all the essential elements of the patented system,” the court said.

Replication process not infringement

The defendants argued that they were only replicating discs from master copies supplied by other sources. They stated that they did not create or encode the original master discs that contained the video data.

The court accepted this argument. It ruled that the process of replication—simply copying data onto new discs—does not amount to infringing a system patent that relates to data transmission or encoding.

Justice Singh said the act of replication lacked the “functional steps” that formed part of Philips’ patented method.

Philips targeted wrong parties

The court also remarked that Philips should have taken legal action against the companies that created the original master discs instead of the replicators.

It said Philips had failed to demonstrate how the replication process used by BCI Optical involved any step that used the patented technology.

This observation highlighted the court’s focus on identifying direct infringers rather than secondary participants in the supply chain.

Significance of the ruling

The decision reinforces the principle that in patent infringement suits, the burden of proof lies on the patent holder. A plaintiff must demonstrate how every element of a patent claim is used by the alleged infringer.

Legal experts say the ruling will influence how multinational corporations approach patent enforcement in India. It underlines the importance of detailed claim mapping and technical evidence before filing infringement suits.

The case also demonstrates the practical challenge of enforcing technology patents that expire during lengthy litigation. Once a patent expires, it loses protection, limiting the remedies a company can seek.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling marks the end of a legal battle that began more than two decades ago. Philips’ attempt to enforce its Video CD patent has ended in defeat, with the court holding that the company failed to establish infringement or provide sufficient proof.

The case highlights a broader issue in India’s patent litigation landscape — the need for timely resolution and stronger technical documentation in complex technology disputes.

Indian Army Secures Patent for Indigenous Power Management System ‘Vidyut Rakshak’

by

The Indian Army has achieved a major milestone in technological innovation by securing a patent for its indigenous power management system, ‘Vidyut Rakshak.’ The device is designed to monitor, protect, and control power supply systems efficiently across diverse terrains.

A Step Toward Self-Reliance

Developed by Major Rajprasad R S, Vidyut Rakshak represents a key advancement under the government’s Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) initiative. The system reduces the Army’s dependence on imported technologies and enhances operational sustainability in critical zones.

How Vidyut Rakshak Works

Vidyut Rakshak enables real-time monitoring and control of multiple power generators and systems. It works seamlessly across various types, makes, and ratings of generators — whether modern or outdated. The innovation ensures stable power supply, detects faults instantly, and prevents equipment failures by triggering automatic protective measures.

Its integrated design allows Army personnel to track power usage and optimize resources, significantly reducing manual intervention. This is especially crucial for remote and high-altitude deployments where regular maintenance is challenging.

Enhancing Operational Efficiency

The system supports the Army’s logistical and operational networks by ensuring uninterrupted electricity for communication, surveillance, and combat operations. Vidyut Rakshak also improves fuel efficiency and minimizes generator wear and tear, saving both time and resources.

According to Army officials, the patented system has already been deployed in multiple field locations and has shown remarkable reliability in extreme weather conditions.

Indigenous Innovation in Defence Technology

The Indian Army’s successful patent filing for Vidyut Rakshak underscores its growing focus on in-house research and development. The innovation showcases the capability of military engineers to deliver cost-effective, scalable, and mission-ready technologies for field applications.

Officials noted that such indigenous solutions not only strengthen operational readiness but also promote technological sovereignty in defence infrastructure.

Towards a Smarter and Sustainable Future

The Vidyut Rakshak project reflects the Army’s broader vision of integrating smart technology into defence operations. It sets a precedent for other wings of the armed forces to pursue digital and sustainable innovations.

With this patent, the Indian Army has reinforced its commitment to innovation, resilience, and national self-reliance — marking another proud step in India’s journey toward technological independence.