Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The Delhi High Court permitted a competing pharma company's expert to examine confidential regulatory submissions in a sealed cover, overriding claims of confidentiality. The order precedes a Supreme Court hearing on the larger biosimilar litigation between Cadila and Hetero.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rival expert access to confidential regulatory data in a sealed cover in the ongoing Cadila-Hetero biosimilar dispute ahead of the Supreme Court hearing. The order raises critical questions about the scope of discovery and confidentiality in IP litigation.
The Delhi High Court permitted a party to inspect regulatory approvals in a sealed cover, overriding confidentiality claims. The order precedes a Supreme Court hearing on November 3, 2026, and raises questions about the balance between discovery and proprietary data protection in IP litigation.
The Delhi High Court in Esteve Pharmaceuticals v CPD applied a tiered analysis: upheld lack of inventive step despite novelty. Clarifies judicial review standards in patent rejections.
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a patent application for 'Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs' for lack of inventive step, while affirming novelty. The tiered analysis clarifies patent examination sequence.
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a patent for 'Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs' for lack of inventive step, affirming Controller’s decision under Section 2(1)(ja). The ruling clarifies that novelty alone does not suffice for patentability.
Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a patent for 'Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs' for lack of inventive step, while affirming novelty. The decision clarifies the threshold for non-obviousness in pharmaceutical innovations.
The Indian Patent Office’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceutical Patent Applications, 2026, have drawn sharp criticism for misquoting statutory provisions and creating uncertainty in patent prosecution. Experts call for substantial revision before finalization.
The IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Patents (2026) face criticism for misquoting statutes and misinterpreting Indian patent law. Experts call for urgent revision to prevent disruption.
IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Patent Examination face criticism for statutory misquotations and misinterpretations. Experts warn they could disrupt prosecution if not substantially revised.
The IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceutical Patent Applications, 2026, have drawn strong criticism for misquoting statutory provisions and introducing legally unsound interpretations. Stakeholders urge comprehensive revision before finalization.
The Delhi High Court has addressed critical aspects of pharmaceutical patent law in the case of Intra Cellular Therapies v. Controller of Patents, revisiting coverage disclosure and the therapeutic efficacy threshold under Section 3(d).