india ipr

Delhi High Court Restrains Dr. Reddy’s, OneSource in Novo Nordisk’s Weight Loss Drug Patent Dispute

by

In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction restraining Indian pharmaceutical major Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and OneSource Nutra from manufacturing, selling, or distributing generic versions of a weight loss drug patented by Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk.

The dispute centers around semaglutide, the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster drug Wegovy, which is used for chronic weight management and has gained global popularity due to its high efficacy in combating obesity. Semaglutide, also used in the diabetes medication Ozempic, has seen skyrocketing demand, making it a highly valuable asset for the company.

The Court’s Interim Order

On Thursday, Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Novo Nordisk, barring Dr. Reddy’s and OneSource from infringing on the company’s patent rights related to semaglutide. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. and Novo Nordisk A/S, which alleged unauthorized use and commercialization of the patented compound by the defendants.

The court observed that a prima facie case of patent infringement had been established and that irreparable harm could be caused to Novo Nordisk if interim relief was not granted. The order restrains the defendants from importing, manufacturing, marketing, or offering for sale any product containing semaglutide until the matter is fully adjudicated.

Background of the Dispute

Novo Nordisk holds a valid Indian patent for semaglutide, which is protected until 2033. The company claimed that Dr. Reddy’s and OneSource had begun producing and marketing unauthorized generic versions of the compound in violation of its intellectual property rights.

In its petition, Novo Nordisk argued that such actions not only amounted to infringement but also posed a serious threat to its commercial interests and research investments in India and globally.

The Danish drugmaker submitted evidence including product listings and promotional material from the defendants, suggesting active commercialization efforts despite the subsistence of the patent.

Industry Impact

The injunction is likely to have far-reaching implications for the Indian pharmaceutical sector, particularly in the context of patent law enforcement and the growing market for obesity treatment drugs. With semaglutide-based therapies becoming a major growth driver for Novo Nordisk, the ruling underscores the increasing significance of patent protection in high-value therapeutic categories.

While Indian generic manufacturers have historically played a critical role in making affordable medications accessible, this case reaffirms the judiciary’s stance on respecting patent laws, particularly when infringement is clearly established.

Responses from the Parties

As of the time of publication, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories has not issued an official statement on the court’s order. OneSource Nutra also remains silent on the issue.

Novo Nordisk, on the other hand, welcomed the decision, stating it was a “vindication of our ongoing commitment to protecting innovation and ensuring patient safety.” The company emphasized that unregulated generics could compromise treatment efficacy and patient outcomes.

Next Steps

The matter is scheduled for further hearing in July 2025, during which the defendants are expected to present their responses. Legal experts suggest that the final outcome could set a precedent for similar cases involving high-demand biologics and patented pharmaceuticals.

As India continues to balance public health interests with intellectual property rights, the resolution of this case will be closely monitored by stakeholders in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors both domestically and internationally.

India Offers Deep Discounts on Complex Generics, Seeks Patent Reform in US Trade Talks: Report

by

In a strategic move aimed at strengthening its pharmaceutical export prospects and easing trade tensions, India has reportedly offered to provide deep discounts on complex generic drugs to the United States, while simultaneously pressing for reforms to American patent laws that New Delhi claims hinder affordable medicine access.

According to a recent report by trade and industry officials familiar with the matter, these proposals are part of ongoing bilateral trade negotiations between the two countries. India is looking to leverage its globally acclaimed generics manufacturing capabilities to improve access to high-cost medicines in the U.S., in exchange for more equitable treatment of its pharmaceutical exports under U.S. intellectual property regimes.

India’s Push for Patent Law Reforms

At the heart of India’s pitch is a long-standing grievance against certain provisions of U.S. patent law, particularly those that India believes delay or obstruct the entry of cheaper generic alternatives. Indian negotiators are specifically targeting the “evergreening” of patents — a practice where slight modifications to existing drugs are used to extend patent protections, thereby postponing generic competition.

“India has been consistent in advocating for more balanced intellectual property frameworks that ensure both innovation and accessibility,” said a senior official from the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry. “We are asking for reforms that would expedite generic drug approvals and reduce legal bottlenecks in the U.S. patent system.”

New Delhi is also seeking greater transparency and predictability in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval process, especially for Indian-manufactured complex generics — drugs that have intricate formulations and require more rigorous regulatory review.

Offering Discounts on Complex Generics

As a goodwill gesture and an incentive for smoother trade ties, India has reportedly offered deep discounts on a select range of complex generics. These include drugs used in the treatment of cancer, HIV, autoimmune disorders, and neurological conditions — therapeutic areas where high prices often prevent wide-scale access in developed and developing countries alike.

The Indian pharmaceutical industry, often referred to as the “pharmacy of the world,” produces nearly 20% of the global supply of generic medicines and is among the largest exporters to the U.S. Indian companies have significantly ramped up their capabilities in complex formulations, biosimilars, and injectables, positioning themselves as viable alternatives to expensive branded counterparts.

A representative from a leading Indian pharma company stated, “We are offering pricing models that could save the U.S. healthcare system billions of dollars annually while ensuring quality and timely supply.”

Implications for Global Drug Pricing

If successful, this initiative could set a precedent for future trade agreements between developed and developing countries where equitable access to medicines is a key concern. It also signals India’s growing clout in shaping global pharmaceutical policy.

Public health experts have welcomed India’s stance, saying that easing U.S. patent restrictions could allow for faster entry of affordable treatments not just in the U.S., but globally, by setting a model that other countries may follow.

However, American pharmaceutical lobbies are likely to resist such changes, citing the need to protect innovation through strong intellectual property protections. “Weakening patent laws could undermine R&D investment,” argued a U.S. industry source, noting that any shift in patent policy would face significant legal and political hurdles in Congress.

Strategic Trade Considerations

This development comes amid broader trade negotiations where both countries are looking to resolve longstanding issues, including tariffs, data localization, and digital services regulation. For India, expanding its pharmaceutical footprint in the U.S. — the world’s largest drug market — is a critical strategic goal.

The Biden administration has shown interest in lowering healthcare costs, and the Indian offer may find resonance amid domestic pressures to make medicines more affordable.

Trade experts believe that the convergence of public health priorities and geopolitical interests could create an opening for a mutually beneficial agreement.

Conclusion

India’s twin strategy of offering affordable complex generics and advocating for patent reform underscores its evolving role in global healthcare diplomacy. As discussions progress, the outcome of these negotiations could have far-reaching implications for international trade norms, intellectual property rights, and drug accessibility.

The world will be watching closely as two of the largest democracies navigate this critical intersection of commerce, innovation, and public health.

SINTX Technologies Sparks Investor Interest with New Patent and Strategic Subsidiary Move

by

SINTX Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SINT), a leader in advanced ceramics, has recently drawn significant attention from retail investors following the issuance of a pivotal U.S. patent and the strategic divestiture of a subsidiary.

Strengthening the Patent Portfolio

SINTX announced the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,761, a development that bolsters its intellectual property portfolio.  This patent covers innovative methods for adhering silicon nitride to various biomaterial substrates, enhancing biocompatibility and resistance to infection.  The technology has potential applications across orthopedic, dental, and spinal implants, aligning with SINTX’s mission to improve patient outcomes and surgical success rates. 

Eric K. Olson, President and CEO of SINTX, emphasized the significance of this advancement: “With its antiviral, antibacterial, and biomechanical advantages, silicon nitride continues to demonstrate its potential in medical implants, regenerative medicine, and advanced coating technologies.” 

Strategic Divestiture to Focus on Core Competencies

Market Response and Financial Outlook

Following these announcements, SINTX’s stock experienced increased trading activity.  As of the latest trading session, the stock is priced at $2.69, reflecting a slight decrease of 0.71% from the previous close.  The day’s trading range saw a high of $2.84 and a low of $2.50, with a volume of 158,621 shares. 

The company’s recent actions have positioned it favorably in the competitive landscape of advanced ceramics and biomedical applications.  With a robust patent portfolio and a clear focus on core competencies, SINTX is poised for continued innovation and growth in the medical device sector.

SPSEC Relaunches IPR Course, to Roll Out New Entrepreneurship Program

by

The Sardar Patel Startup and Entrepreneurship Council (SPSEC), functioning under the aegis of the Startup Incubation Center at Sardar Patel University (SPU), has announced the relaunch of its Certificate Course in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Alongside this initiative, the council is also gearing up to introduce a new certificate program focused on entrepreneurship fundamentals.

The 40-hour IPR course, which was previously offered by SPSEC, received an enthusiastic response from students, innovators, and early-stage startup founders. According to university officials, the course enabled participants to grasp the significance of safeguarding their intellectual creations and led many to successfully register their ideas and explore avenues for commercialization.

“The success of the previous edition demonstrated a clear need for structured IPR education among budding entrepreneurs and academic researchers,” a university spokesperson said. “This course serves as a gateway to understanding how intellectual assets can be protected and leveraged in today’s knowledge-driven economy.”

The renewed edition of the IPR course aims to reach a wider demographic. It is open not only to university students and faculty but also to freelancers, homemakers, researchers, small business owners, and startup founders. The curriculum is designed to offer a practical understanding of both Indian and international intellectual property laws, including areas such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.

“The goal is to empower participants with the knowledge required to protect their innovations — an essential component for anyone looking to build a sustainable business or contribute to research and development,” the spokesperson added.

In addition to the IPR course, SPSEC is set to roll out a new program on the fundamentals of entrepreneurship. This initiative aims to equip aspiring entrepreneurs with critical skills such as idea validation, market research, business model development, and fundraising strategies.

Both courses are a part of SPSEC’s broader mission to foster an entrepreneurial culture within the university ecosystem and beyond. With the increasing relevance of intellectual property and startup development in India’s economic growth, SPSEC’s educational offerings are timely and impactful.

Enrollment details and course schedules are expected to be announced shortly on the SPU and SPSEC official websites and social media channels.

3D Bioprinting Breakthroughs Face Patentability Challenges Amidst Legal and Ethical Complexities

by

The advent of 3D bioprinting has revolutionized regenerative medicine, offering unprecedented possibilities in tissue engineering, organ fabrication, and personalized healthcare.  However, as this innovative field progresses, it encounters significant hurdles in securing patent protection, owing to intricate legal frameworks and ethical considerations.

The Promise of 3D Bioprinting

 This technology holds immense potential for addressing organ shortages, enabling drug testing on human-like tissues, and advancing personalized medicine.

Patentability: A Complex Landscape

Securing patents for bioprinting innovations is fraught with challenges, primarily due to the intersection of biotechnology and intellectual property laws.  In India, for instance, while the Indian Patents Act permits the patenting of bioprinting processes and bioinks, it imposes restrictions on products that closely resemble natural biological materials.  Sections 3(b) and 3(j) of the Act exclude inventions that are contrary to public order or morality and those related to plants and animals, respectively.  Consequently, bioprinted tissues or organs that are deemed too similar to natural counterparts may be considered non-patentable. 

Similarly, in the United States, the patent eligibility of bioprinted products is influenced by precedents that preclude the patenting of natural phenomena.  The “product of nature” doctrine, reinforced by cases like Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, stipulates that naturally occurring substances, even if isolated, are not patentable.  Therefore, bioprinted tissues must exhibit characteristics markedly different from their natural counterparts to qualify for patent protection. 

Ethical and Legal Considerations

Beyond legal statutes, ethical concerns significantly impact the patentability of bioprinting innovations.  The use of human embryonic stem cells (ESCs) in bioinks raises moral questions, leading to potential objections under provisions that prohibit inventions contrary to public morality.  To navigate this, researchers are increasingly turning to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which do not involve the destruction of embryos and are thus more ethically acceptable. 

Moreover, the ownership of digital models derived from a patient’s biological data introduces complexities in intellectual property rights.  Determining whether the patient, healthcare provider, or bioprinting company holds rights over these models is an ongoing debate, necessitating clear guidelines to protect individual privacy while fostering innovation. 

Navigating the Path Forward

To surmount these challenges, stakeholders in the bioprinting domain must adopt strategic approaches:

Innovative Claim Drafting: Emphasizing the artificial aspects and technical advancements of bioprinted products can help distinguish them from natural entities, enhancing patent eligibility.

Ethical Compliance: Utilizing ethically sourced materials and transparent methodologies can mitigate moral objections, facilitating smoother patent approval processes.

Collaborative Frameworks: Establishing clear agreements on data ownership and usage rights can preempt legal disputes and promote collaborative research.


As 3D bioprinting continues to evolve, addressing the intertwined legal and ethical issues is paramount to unlocking its full potential.  By proactively engaging with these challenges, the scientific community can pave the way for groundbreaking advancements that are both innovative and responsibly governed.

Delhi High Court Summons ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’ Over KFC Trademark Dispute

by

The Delhi High Court has issued a summons to ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’, a local restaurant, in response to a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by the globally recognized fast-food chain, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). The legal action stems from KFC’s claims that the eatery is imitating its brand identity and misleading customers.

KFC Alleges Brand Imitation

KFC, operated by Yum! Brands, alleges that ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’ unlawfully uses branding elements that closely resemble those of KFC. This includes similarities in the visual design, menu presentation, and particularly the acronym “NFC”, which KFC claims is a deliberate attempt to confuse customers and exploit the popularity of its brand.

The lawsuit also highlights the use of the word “Nashville” in the restaurant’s name — a term that features prominently in KFC’s own menu item, the “Nashville Hot Chicken.” KFC maintains that this choice of branding is likely to mislead consumers into believing there is an association between the two businesses.

Court Issues Summons

Justice Anish Dayal, presiding over the case, admitted the matter and ordered the defendant to respond to the allegations. The court recognized the potential for consumer deception due to the overlapping branding and has scheduled the matter for further hearing in the coming weeks.

The court acknowledged KFC’s longstanding presence in India and noted that the alleged similarities in branding may amount to “passing off” — a situation where one business misrepresents its goods or services as those of another.

KFC Seeks Injunction and Damages

In the lawsuit, KFC has asked the court to issue a permanent injunction preventing ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’ from using the contested name and related branding. The company is also pursuing financial compensation, citing harm to its reputation and brand equity.

According to KFC, its brand elements — including its signature red-and-white color scheme, the image of Colonel Sanders, and its widely known slogans — have earned significant recognition among Indian consumers over the years. The company argues that any imitation not only confuses the public but also weakens its distinct brand identity.

Implications of the Case

The outcome of this legal battle could have broader implications for the Indian food and hospitality industry, particularly concerning brand protection and intellectual property rights. Legal analysts suggest that the case could set a benchmark on how Indian courts view brand mimicry, especially when smaller entities adopt marketing elements similar to established international brands.

The next hearing is expected to take place in June, where both parties will present their detailed arguments before the court.

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

by

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

Background of the Case

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

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

Court’s Findings

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

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

Legal Implications

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

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

Conclusion

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