Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments. Last week we published 6 posts including a post on the PAC Chairperson’s demand for a probe by CVC into the allegations of corruption against CGPDTM, and also introduced the inaugural SpicyIP Doctoral Fellow. This and a lot more in this SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Please let us know in the comments below.

Highlights of the Week

PAC Chairperson Demands Probe by Chief Vigilance Commission Into Corruption Allegations Against CGPDTM!

Allegations of corruption against the CGPDTM! Recently the PAC Chairperson demanded a probe by the CVC into corruption allegations against CGPDTM. Praharsh explains why the allegations of recruiting contractual employees are particularly problematic, emphasizing the need for systemic reform. Read on to learn more.

Announcing the Inaugural SpicyIP Doctoral Fellow!

Meet the Inaugural SpicyIP Doctoral Fellow! SpicyIP is proud to announce the inaugural SpicyIP Doctoral Fellowship! This fellowship is awarded to a PhD candidate in an Indian University, whose doctoral studies are on IP and/or innovation policy, with a focus on public interest, transparency and accountability, or socially beneficial legal and policy levers. And the first ever receipient of the fellowship is Ms. Malobika Sen! Malobika is a 2nd year PhD scholar and a full-time Teaching Assistant at WBNUJS, Kolkata, who is working on examining the need for, and contribution of “Experts” in IP dispute adjudication. Read on as she explains her motivation for her dissertation, her research problem, and her expectations from the fellowship!

Arthrogen v. Controller Gen of Patents: The DHC’s Dilemma of Identifying the Method of Treatment under Section 3(i) of the Patent Act

In the context of Section 3(i), the DHC recently clarified that a ‘method of treatment’ is distinct from a ‘method of producing a substance’ that can later be used in the treatment. Read Tejaswini’s post to know more about the decision and how it fares with the MHC order on Section 3(i) in the Chinese University of Hong Kong case.

Other Posts

Journey Through “Januarys” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)

Sit back, relax, and sift through the pages of January’s posts on SpicyIP! Here is another round of SpicyIP flashbacks by Lokesh, where he looks into a variety of topics ranging from IP and Gaming to Biodiversity and Benefit Sharing! Do let us know your thoughts on these mini-guides in the comments below!

SpicyIP Tibdit: Delhi High Court directs Oppo to make interim deposit in InterDigital v. Oppo proceedings

SpicyIP Tibdit: Delhi High Court directs Oppo to make an interim deposit in InterDigital v. Oppo proceedings. Read on to know more about the development.

Navigating Denied Filings: Trademark Justice at the Crossroads of the Commercial Courts Act

DHC’s recent order in TTK Prestige v. Baghla Sanitaryware is the classic case when trademark justice to prevent infringement clashes with procedural rigors. Read this post by Kevin, explaining the Court’s different interpretations of “reasonable cause” allowing one party to file additional documents while rejecting the other’s request for the same.

Case Summaries

BMI Group Danmark Aps vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents on 22 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)

An appeal was filed against the impugned order rejecting the suit patent for lack of an inventive step. It was alleged by the appellant that the impugned order lacks the necessary reasons and cursorily holds that the technical features of the invention fall within the cited prior art. The Court, on a prima facie basis held that that the reasoning of the respondent was insufficient to support the conclusion and while issuing notice to the respondent’s counsel asked whether the respondent will be willing to reconsider the issue afresh.

V2 Corp & Ors vs Elaine Beverages Private Limited & Anr on 22 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)

The applicant, relying on the Court’s previous exparte interim injunction order, sought directions to the local commissioner to cease and destroy the impugned goods. The Court rejected the application and held that this is an inaccurate reading of its earlier order. It clarified that the ex-parte interim injunction order was only to prevent the defendant from distributing the seized item in the market and that the applicant has misinterpreting the scope and intent of its order. The Court also directed the applicant to pay INR 25 thousand as costs, though later waived this direction.

F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr vs Zydus Lifesciences Limited, on 23 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)

The plaintiff filed an application seeking a quia timet interim injunction against the defendant from launching its biosimilar variant of Pertuzumab. The plaintiff stated that they came across a recommendation of the Subject Expert Committee, CDSCO stating that the defendant has applied to manufacture the biosimilar variant of the drugs and sought permission to conduct clinical trials and therefore they apprehend that the defendant’s drugs, if allowed to launch will infringe their suit patents. The Court did not pass an interim injunction order, holding that the plaintiff ought to have done claim mapping and directed them to do so as expeditiously as possible. The Court also resorted to Section 104A and directed the defendant to reveal their process to develop the formulation for which drug approval/ licensing has been sought in a sealed envelope. It further directed parties to state the names of their experts to facilitate examination of expert opinions if deemed necessary, and considering the technicalities of the matter held that it will eventually consider resorting to- appoint an independent expert for the matter, employ hot tubbing, constitute a confidentiality club.

Oswal Books And Learning Pvt Ltd vs Bokaro Students Friend Pvt Ltd And Ors on 7 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)

The plaintiff was aggrieved by the defendant’s reproduction of the pirated version of their copyright study material and infringement of their trademarks. The plaintiff upon internal investigation found that more than 107 third party vendors have been selling the infringing goods and was able to trace to defendant no 1 and 2 as the primary sources of the infringing. Upon comparing the competing products, the Court found them to be deceptively similar to one another and passed the ex parte ad interim injunction order.

Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. vs Ashok Kumar And Ors on 20 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)

The plaintiff was aggrieved by the defendant’s use of “Hero Oil” mark which was alleged to be deceptively similar to their “Hero Genuine oil” mark. Previously an ex parte interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff and upon execution of a local commission infringing products were seized from the premises of the defendants. The defendants did not submit their written statements. Consequently the Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff upon being satisfied about the infringement from the plaintiff’s submissions and imposed damages worth 8 lakhs along with actual costs.

ITC Limited vs Gold Step Tobacco Private Limited & Ors on 8 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court passed an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, prima facie finding “Gold Flake” and “Gold Leaf” marks to be deceptively similar.

Burberry Limited vs M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors on 28 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)

The plaintiff was aggrieved by the defendant’s adoption of the trademark “Mr Petrol” and its trade dress. It was alleged that the defendant’s trademark and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “Mr. Burberry” mark and trade dress. The defendant argued that no claim of infringement can be made since their “Mr. Petrol” trademark is registered whereas the plaintiff’s marks are not. The Court held that despite lawful registration, the defendant is applying the mark on identical goods in a virtually indistinguishable manner, passing off their goods as the plaintiff’s. Thus, the Court held the adoption to be mala fide and passed an ad interim injunction in the favor of the plaintiff.

Microsoft Technology Licensing  LLC v. Asst. Controller of Patents on 21 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)

The plaintiff was aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting its patent application for invention titled “Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves.” The plaintiff alleged procedural infirmities during the examination, and that the impugned order does not provide sufficient reasons. They further argued that the respondent did not consider the EPO decision on subject invention, where similar objections regarding prior arts were satisfied by the plaintiff by amendments. The plaintiff submitted that the scope of the amended claims before the EPO and the claims submitted to the respondent were similar but they were not accepted by the respondent. The Court agreed that the impugned order is a non speaking one and that there were procedural lapses during the examination. Regarding the EPO decision, the Court held that the EPO decision provides the relevant context, suggests a level of inventiveness, and patentability of the invention and thus could have been instrumental in the respondent’s decision making process. On the above grounds, the Court remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh considerations.

Other IP Development

International IP Development

• SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
• PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
• PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
• PlatoESG. Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
• PlatoHealth. Biotech and Clinical Trials Intelligence. Access Here.
• Source: https://spicyip.com/2024/03/spicyip-weekly-review-february-26-march-4-2.html