At Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys, we are often asked a familiar question: “Won’t AI make patent professionals obsolete?” Our clear view is that AI will significantly change how patent work is done, but it will not replace the professionals who understand technology, law, and business strategy. Research on legal work shows that only a portion of what inventors do can be automated with current technology, and that the most critical parts of our role, such as understanding inve

Continuing our 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬, a practical guide for inventors, startups, and researchers to better understand patent protection in India. It’s time to understand the difference between a utility patent and a design patent which is essential for any inventor/researcher seeking to protect an innovation. Choosing the appropriate type of patent determines the scope and strength of legal protection. In many jurisdictions, particularly in t

The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents has delivered a significant ruling on the architecture of revocation under the Patents Act, 1970, in the context of IN 243301 covering Linagliptin. The decision addresses how Section 64 revocation interacts with Section 107 invalidity defences and with the expiry of the patent itself. The Court framed two central questions. 1. Can a revocation petition under S

Recently, a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Lotus Herbals Private Limited (“Lotus Herbal”) against an order passed by the Ld. Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and granted an interim injunction against DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited (“DPKA”) restraining it from using the LOTUS SPLASH and LOTUS marks and/or any other mark nearly identical/deceptively similar to Lotus Herbal’s LOTUS mark. Despite a prima facie finding o

Continuing our Knowledge Base Patent Series, a practical guide for inventors, startups, and researchers to better understand patent protection in India. For innovators, startups, and corporate R&D teams, understanding what can and cannot be patented in India is crucial. This section of the Indian Patents Act- Section 4 define key exclusions. This section applies for atomic energy inventions; such applications are referred to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board for scrutiny aft

The recent controversy at the India AI Impact Summit 2026—where Galgotias University showcased a quadruped robotic dog later identified as the commercially manufactured Unitree Go2 developed by Unitree Robotics -highlights a critical issue for India’s intellectual property ecosystem: the need to clearly distinguish between innovation and invention . In view our perspective, this distinction is not semantic; it is legal and strategic. An invention is a novel and non-obvious

What Inventions Are NOT Patentable in India? (Understanding on Section 3 of the Indian Patents Act) Continuing our 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬, a practical guide for inventors, startups, and researchers to better understand patent protection in India. When inventors apply for patents in India, it’s important to know that not all inventions qualify for patent protection. The Indian Patents Act sets some clear rules about what cannot be patented, mai

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Yangtze Memory Technologie Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. delivers a sharp procedural reminder for patent applicants: the right to file a divisional application ends the moment the parent patent is granted. The Court holds? Interpreting Section 16(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, the Court reaffirmed that a divisional application may be filed only “at any time before the grant of the patent.” Once the patent is granted, the window closes - co

Recently, the Delhi High Court allowed a trademark rectification petition filed by Satya Paul (“Petitioner”), the proprietor of the trademark ARUN, and directed the rectification of the trademark “AiC ARUN” registered in favour of Alka Industrial Corporation (“Respondent”) by ordering deletion of the word “ARUN” from the trademark. The Petitioner claimed to have adopted the trademark ARUN in 1962 for sewing machines and related parts. The Petitioner relied on multiple regis

Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court refused to cancel the registered trademark, REKIN-SP, of Rekin Pharma Private Limited (“Respondent”) in a cancellation petition filed by Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (“Petitioner”). The Petitioner had filed the petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the “Act”), seeking removal of the Respondent’s registration for the mark, REKIN-SP in Class 5, on the grounds of prior rights and deceptive similarity of the riv

What Makes an Invention Patentable in India? This is an important question every inventor should understand. Many inventors believe that having a good idea automatically qualifies them for a patent. But in reality, this is not how patent protection works in India. Under Indian Patent Law, every invention must pass specific legal and technical tests before it can be granted a patent. Understanding these basics early can save time, money, and disappointment. So, what actually m

The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench has now pronounced its decision in Canva Pty Ltd & Ors v. RxPrism Health Systems Pvt Ltd & Anr, a significant moment for patent enforcement in the Indian SaaS and tech ecosystem, it is a wake-up call for both SaaS startups and IP practitioners navigating India’s evolving software-patent landscape. RxPrism, holder of Indian Patent IN 360726 for a system and method for creating and sharing interactive content through a layered architectur

Recently, in an appeal filed by the appellant, Karan Rathore, the Delhi High Court overturned an order passed by the Trade Marks Registry (“Registry”) dismissing an opposition filed by the appellant against an application filed by the respondent, Shivam Rathore. The appellant is the registered owner of the mark JBR Device, which covers motor parts in Class 12. In July 2020, the appellant’s predecessor-in-interest formally authorized the respondent to use the appellant’s mark

The Delhi High Court has handed down an important decision in Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Prevego Healthcare & Research Pvt. Ltd. , observing that device marks cannot automatically grant protection over the word or letters comprised therein, unless shown to have acquired secondary meaning. The court held that a registration for a device of the mark ‘A TO Z’ will not offer protection against use of the marks “A TO Z” or “AZ”, since these would be inherently descriptive. The

Semaglutide is the rare drug that sits at the intersection of science, culture and capital. The Delhi High Court’s semaglutide order in CS(COMM) 565/2025 Novo Nordisk v Dr Reddy’s shows how Indian courts will police the outer edge of that capital: the extra years companies try to add through follow‑on patents.​ Novo’s enforcement hinged on a later “species” patent, IN262697, claiming semaglutide as a specific GLP‑1 analogue. An older “genus” patent, IN275964, had already cl

The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 (SHANTI Act) fundamentally transforms India's nuclear patent landscape from categorical prohibition to conditional authorization. ​The Legacy Framework (Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962) For over five decades, Section 20(1) imposed an across-the-board prohibition on patents for inventions in the atomic energy field. This encompassed reactor technologies, uranium enrichmen

Recently, on November 18, 2025, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, released draft guidelines for the use of the Geographical Indication (“GI”) Logo for comments and suggestions from the general public and concerned stakeholders. This comes in light of the Government of India’s process of developing comprehensive guidelines for the use of the GI logo. GI refers to an indication which identifies goods as agr

In C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2025, the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of Indian Patent Application No. 202117029591 filed by Nippon Steel Corporation for an invention titled “High-Strength Steel Sheet and Manufacturing Method of High-Strength Steel Sheet”. The Controller had rejected the application on the ground that “proof of right” was not established for one deceased inventor, invoking Sections 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c) and 7(2) of the Patents Act to question Nippon Steel’s en

The ever flourishing cross-border trade and the expansion of global markets has led to shedding of more importance on parallel importation and effective implementation of ranging price gaps. If we were to understand the concept of exhaustion of a trade mark in simple terms, we would break it down as one of the limitations under the intellectual property law. Once any good which are protected by an IP right are smarketed- by an enterprise or by anyone else with the prior conse

In a recent judgment, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (“Court”) has served an important and timely reminder that damages must necessarily be based on evidence which proves that the claimant suffered actual loss, and that any calculation based on speculative assumptions would be liable to be set aside. The judgment came in an appeal by the Defendant/Appellant challenging a Trial Court decision where the Defendant’s mark “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” was found to be deceptivel