Article
Navigating nature’s law: India’s legal overhaul of biodiversity access and benefit sharing By Dr. Malathi Lakshmikumaran and Aashmeen Kaur
The first article in this issue of IPR Amicus examines the recent developments around Biological Diversity, focusing on access to biological resources, intellectual property rights based on the Indian biological resources, and the evolving benefit-sharing mechanisms. Discussing the changes, the authors note that the reforms represent a pivotal shift in India’s biodiversity governance, reflecting a deliberate effort to balance conservation priorities with the promotion of innovation, research, and commercial engagement. According to them, as India continues to refine its biodiversity governance, these reforms mark a pivotal step toward balancing innovation, conservation, sustainable use of biological resources and national interest.
Patenting antibodies of the future – De novo designed antibodies By Dr. Joyita Deb and Dr. Malathi Lakshmikumaran
The second article in this issue of the newsletter focuses on de novo antibody design. These antibodies are fully developed and selected by AI against specific targets or epitopes while also addressing critical factors like affinity, cross-reactivity, and developability. The authors note that the emergence of de novo antibody design intersects with two rapidly evolving areas of patent law—AI and antibodies, raising important questions about how to secure effective patent protection given the current challenges in patenting these biologics. According to the authors, certain aspects of the law such as inventorship and patentability would expect to see little change, but aspects such as inventive step and sufficiency would need to be reassessed if innovation in this sector is to be encouraged.
Section 59 of the Patents Act – The journey so far By Aashmeen Kaur and Anurag Pandey
The third article in this issue discusses Section 59 of the Patents Act, which provides supplementary provisions as to amendment of application or specification. It examines how Indian courts have interpreted Section 59 through six recent case law. The authors point out that the decisions underscore the complexities faced by applicants, especially in the context of India’s distinct patentability standards, which often diverge from those in other jurisdictions. Further, they highlight few points which still need to be clarified by the Court.
Ratio decidendi
- Patentability under Section 3(e) [admixture] – Applicant to only demonstrate that composition is more than the sum of its parts – Data when not required – Madras High Court
- Patents – Cross-examination of opposite party’s expert must be exercised diligently and at the earliest – Delhi High Court
- Patents – Numerical references in complete specifications or claims cannot be ignored – Delhi High Court
- Patents – Pre-grant opposition and patent application are to be heard separately – Calcutta High Court
- Trademark infringement suit not maintainable in India in case of mark registered in foreign country when goods bearing the mark also sold from a website registered abroad – Gujarat High Court
- Trademarks – Extension of time under Section 131 when can be sought – Madras High Court
- Trademarks – No deemed abandonment under Section 45(2) when extension sought within prescribed 2 months – Madras High Court
News Nuggets
- Patents – Delhi High Court remands dispute on questions of double patenting, Sections 130 and 3(f)
- Trademark Registrar is expected to decide registration application in a reasonable time
- Trademark – Interlocutory petition before the Trademark office is wrong when without statutory basis
- Trademark ‘PETKIND’ allowed to proceed for advertisement – Objection of earlier mark ‘PETKIND PHARMA’ overruled
- Trademark ‘Pro.Fitness’ allowed to proceed for advertisement
- Trademarks – Delhi HC declines to grant interim injunction against use of WOW!
- HOTELCOM restrained from infringing trademark Hotels.com – Court cites initial interest confusion
- E-infringement – Supreme Court upholds Delhi HC DB’s stay order on huge damages
