Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
FeaturedThe draft India-EU Free Trade Agreement’s IP chapter proposes standards that may conflict with Indian exceptions on temporary copies and digital archiving. The final text may impact software and internet operations.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court permitted a rival company's expert to examine confidential regulatory approvals in a sealed cover, rejecting claims of confidentiality. This pre-Supreme Court discovery order raises significant IP and regulatory data protection questions.
FeaturedDelhi High Court in Esteve Pharmaceuticals v. Controller clarified that novelty and inventive step must be assessed separately in patent rejection appeals. The case upheld lack of inventive step despite acknowledging novelty.
FeaturedThe Kerala High Court interpreted Section 100 of the Patents Act in a government use case involving the drug Ribociclib, balancing access to medicine with patent rights. The decision underscores tensions between public health policy, drug pricing, and patent enforcement.
FeaturedA Kerala High Court judgment on government use of patented invention under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 reignites debate on access to medicine, pricing, and policy balance in the context of the drug Ribociclib.
FeaturedIPO’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceutical Patent Applications, 2026, face sharp criticism for misquoting statutory provisions and misinterpreting Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. Experts warn the draft could undermine patent stability and prosecution consistency if adopted without revision.
FeaturedThe Indian Patent Office’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceutical Patent Applications (2026) face strong criticism for misquoting statutory provisions and misinterpreting legal standards. Stakeholders call for substantial revision before finalization.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court, in Fresenius Kabi v. Controller, set aside the rejection of a patent application for Sugammadex, citing procedural flaws under Section 14 of the Patents Act. The Court criticized the use of hindsight and mosaicking in prior art analysis.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court set aside the Controller’s refusal of Fresenius Kabi’s Sugammadex patent, citing procedural flaws under Section 14 of the Patents Act. The order underscores strict compliance with hearing requirements and warns against hindsight bias in inventive step analysis.
Delhi High Court ordered Cadila to allow Hetero’s expert access to sealed regulatory submissions in a biosimilar dispute. The unprecedented discovery ruling may set precedent for IP litigation involving complex technical data.
The Delhi High Court permitted a rival's expert to inspect confidential regulatory submissions in the Cadila-Hetero biosimilar litigation, rejecting claims of absolute confidentiality. The order precedes a Supreme Court hearing on the matter.
The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority introduced a Trade Margin Rationalisation order capping markups on select anti-cancer drugs. The move aims to improve affordability but may face structural limitations in addressing systemic access issues.