Standard Essential Patents – Confidentiality Clubs and fixing of FRAND rates – Prayer for keeping certain documents inaccessible to defendant, unacceptable
11 January 2021
In a case involving alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patent, the Delhi High Court has rejected the request for constitution of a two-tier Confidentiality Club. The plaintiff had suggested that the ‘outer tier’ documents be accessible to the advocates, experts appointed by them, as well as representatives of both parties, whereas the ‘inner tier’ documents will be accessible only to non-inhouse advocates and not to the parties as well as their officials and employees.
04 January 2021
The Larger Bench of the Supreme Court of India has propounded a four-fold test for determining when the subject matter of a dispute in an arbitration agreement is not arbitrable. The Apex Court however noted that these tests are not watertight compartments; they dovetail and overlap, and have to be applied with care and caution.
22 December 2020
The Supreme Court has held that transfer of winding up proceedings from High Court to NCLT on application of financial creditor not party to proceedings before Court is permissible.
18 December 2020
Observing that an arbitration agreement between the parties is an agreement independent of the substantive contract and the parties can choose a different governing law for the arbitration, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that two Indian parties can choose a foreign law as the law governing arbitration.
17 December 2020
The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India has upheld the view that the suit for alleged infringement in designs, where the defendant had in a counter claim sought cancellation of the registered design, is to be transferred to a High Court even if it does not have a Commercial Court Bench, i.e. High Courts which do not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
14 December 2020
The Supreme Court has held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘RERA Act’) does not bar the initiation of ‘consumer complaints’ by the apartment allottees against builders under the extant consumer protection laws.
10 December 2020
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) has allowed the appeal filed againt rejection of the patent application in a case involving divisional application with different combination of components . The Appellant’s patent application was earlier refused by the Controller under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970.
04 December 2020
In Dow Agrosciences LLC v. The Controller of Patents, the sole and primary issue pertained to the filing of proof of right by the applicant. The IPAB made reference to the applicable provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, the Patents Rules, 2003, and the relevant regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. It was held that declaration as per Rule 4.17(ii) of the PCT Regulations serves as sufficient proof of right.
02 December 2020
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) recently discussed the admissibility of amendments to claims in a patent application as per the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘Act’), and the need to conduct tests of novelty and inventive step on claims in patent applications. Another important aspect dealt with was the applicability of Section 3(i) of the Act.
Patents – IPAB reaffirms principles of natural justice while discussing prior art documents and description
01 December 2020
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) recently reaffirmed the interminable role of the principles of natural justice in judicial and/or quasi-judicial decisions, whilst also clarifying aspects of patent law with respect to cited prior art documents and description of the invention.