IPR Amicus: October 2016

The Indian Trade Marks law has no explicit provision relating to trade dress. However, the same is impliedly incorporated within the meaning of “mark” in Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which includes the shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours.

IPR Amicus: September 2016

Article in this issue of IPR Amicus deals with statutory licensing of copyrights under the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.

IPR Amicus: August 2016

Article in this issue of Amicus seeks to explore and understand the evolving nexus between the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the Patents Act, 1970.

IPR Amicus: July 2016

Examination of computer-related inventions (CRIs) by the Indian Patent Office is perceived to be ambiguous. However, certain recent decisions of the Controller highlight the emerging consistency in examination of CRIs.

IPR Amicus: June 2016

Section 8 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 mandates applicant(s) filing an application for a patent in India to furnish information pertaining to applications for a patent for ‘the same or substantially the same invention’ filed in any country outside India.

IPR Amicus: May 2016

The modified guidelines for examination of Computer Related Invention CRIs provide a three-stage test for determining whether a claim falls within the exclusions of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.

IPR Amicus: April 2016

The legal protection to an invention is based on the claims of the granted patent. A process patent has claims directed towards a method/ process of manufacture of the product.

IPR Amicus: March 2016

Can proceedings for rectification before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board be initiated without the permission of the Court trying the infringement suit? The Delhi High Court recently held that prior permission of the Court is not necessary.

IPR Amicus: February 2016

Patents are not just instruments of private commercial utilisation but also have an impact on public policy.

IPR Amicus: January 2016

A plaintiff would be entitled to rely on the grant of a patent as prima facie proof of validity, but the defendant would only be required to demonstrate (through scientific literature, expert evidence, etc.)