Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court's interim order in ANI v. OpenAI marks a pivotal moment in Indian copyright law as it recognizes user rights and fair dealing principles in the context of AI use.
FeaturedThe Kerala High Court addressed the scope of Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970, in the context of access to the cancer drug ribociclib. The ruling balances public health interests against patent rights, emphasizing lawful government use for public welfare.
FeaturedThe Kerala High Court ruled on government use of a patented cancer drug Ribociclib under Section 100 of the Patents Act, balancing access to medicine against patent rights amid evolving drug pricing and enforcement policies.
FeaturedThe Kerala High Court ruled on government use of patented inventions under Section 100 of the Patents Act in the context of access to Ribociclib, a cancer drug. The order balances public health needs with patent rights, amid evolving pricing and enforcement policies.
FeaturedThe Kerala High Court interpreted Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970, permitting government use of a patented invention for public health, raising critical questions on access to medicine, patent rights, and pricing policy.
FeaturedThe Kerala High Court interpreted Section 100 of the Patents Act, allowing government use of a patented cancer drug, Ribociclib, in public health emergencies. The ruling balances patent rights with access to medicine, citing compulsory licensing and public interest.
FeaturedCalcutta and Delhi High Courts are divided on whether non-use cancellation under Section 47 triggers 'rectification proceedings' under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. This split affects stay applications in infringement suits.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court in ZARA v. ZORA held that a formal declaration of well-known status under Rule 124 is not mandatory to invoke Section 11(2) protections. The ruling enables litigants to establish well-known status through evidence in individual cases.
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.