-
Why Clear Termination Clauses and Strict Compliance Matter in Intellectual Property Agreements: A Legal Analysis of VVAA Films Pvt. Ltd. v. DUNE Collective LLP
In a commercial relationship involving intellectual property (IP), termination of an agreement can have consequences far beyond the end of a contractual relationship. It may affect ownership of valuable IP assets, rights to commercialise a product, entitlement to revenue, and the ability to enter into arrangements with third parties. Where substantial investments have been made in reliance on an agreement, an improperly exercised termination clause can expose a business to considerable legal and financial uncertainty.
A critical question therefore arises: can a party terminate an IP agreement merely because it alleges that the other party has committed a contractual breach, or must it strictly follow the termination procedure agreed upon by the parties? The answer becomes particularly significant when termination is disputed and the rights at stake cannot easily be restored through monetary compensation.
The Bombay High Court examined these issues in VVAA Films Private Limited v. DUNE Collective LLP, decided on 5 October 2026 (click here for the judgment). Although the dispute arose from a film co-production agreement, the Court’s observations have wider relevance for commercial collaborations in which funding obligations, contractual performance, and intellectual property rights are interdependent.
The Dispute: Funding Default or Improper Termination?
The dispute arose from a co-production agreement dated 3 April 2026 for a Hindi feature film tentatively titled SNAP. Under the agreement, VVAA Films Private Limited agreed to invest up to ₹15 crore in return for a 40% interest in the film’s intellectual property rights and a 40% share in its net profits.
The investment was structured in three tranches, with the release of the second tranche subject to specified conditions. These included written confirmation concerning completion of principal photography and payments to various third parties involved in production.
Disagreements subsequently arose over whether the conditions for releasing the second tranche had been satisfied. The producer, DUNE Collective LLP, demanded ₹6.5 crore and threatened to terminate the agreement if payment was not made within 36 hours. VVAA Films disputed the demand and contended that the agreement required written notice and an opportunity of up to 30 days to remedy the alleged breach.
The co-producer approached the Bombay High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protection of its claimed intellectual property interest and other contractual rights pending arbitration.
The central conflict was not simply whether funding had been delayed. It concerned whether the alleged default justified termination in the manner attempted and whether the producer could create third-party interests in the film while the parties’ rights remained disputed.
Termination Clauses Must Be Clear and Contractually Enforceable
A termination clause defines the circumstances in which a party may bring a contractual relationship to an end. In a well-drafted commercial agreement, it should identify the grounds for termination, the notice required, the period available to remedy a breach, and the consequences of termination.
These provisions become particularly important in IP agreements because termination may affect rights that have already been licensed, assigned, jointly owned, or commercially exploited. An agreement should therefore distinguish between termination for convenience, termination for breach, and termination following the failure to remedy a specified default.
The distinction is substantive, not merely formal. Where termination is permitted only upon specified grounds and subject to an agreed procedure, a party cannot necessarily treat the existence of a breach as sufficient authority to bypass that procedure.
In VVAA Films, the agreement contemplated an opportunity of up to 30 days to remedy the relevant default. The termination communication, however, demanded payment within 36 hours and threatened immediate termination.
The Court observed that these periods were substantially different and that the agreed cure period could not be reduced merely because the producer considered the alleged default serious. It found, at the interim stage, that the material before it did not establish compliance with the contractual cure mechanism.
The decision underscores an important principle for businesses: a termination right must be exercised in accordance with the conditions governing its exercise. A party’s belief that the other side has breached the agreement does not, by itself, dispense with an expressly agreed notice or cure requirement.
Are Contracts Containing Termination Clauses Always Determinable?
The dispute also raised the question of whether the co-production agreement was a contract “in its nature determinable” under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 41(e) of the Act restricts the grant of injunctions to prevent the breach of contracts whose performance cannot be specifically enforced.
The producer relied on this framework to oppose the requested injunctive relief. The issue, however, was whether the mere presence of a termination clause was sufficient to characterise the agreement as determinable in law.
The Court distinguished between a contract that may be terminated at a party’s will and one that permits termination only upon specified grounds and subject to an agreed opportunity to cure. At the prima facie stage, it held that the existence of a termination clause alone did not resolve the question of whether the agreement was in its nature determinable.
This distinction is significant for commercial drafting. A contract should not be assumed to fall outside the scope of injunctive relief merely because it contains a termination provision. Its nature, the terms governing termination, and the circumstances in which the termination right was exercised must be examined.
The judgment does not establish that every contract requiring notice and a cure period is necessarily enforceable by injunction. The statutory restrictions continue to apply, and the legal character of the particular contract remains decisive.
Section 9 Arbitration: Protecting IP Rights Pending Adjudication
Where an agreement contains an arbitration clause, Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enables a party to seek appropriate interim measures from a court. Such relief may be necessary where waiting for the arbitral tribunal to determine the dispute could expose the subject matter to irreversible prejudice.
In VVAA Films, the co-producer apprehended that the producer might bring in third-party financiers or create third-party interests in the film and its underlying intellectual property. Such dealings, it argued, could prejudice its claimed 40% interest and undermine the effectiveness of the arbitration.
The Court found a prima facie basis for the co-producer’s claim to an interest in the film’s intellectual property rights. It considered that the creation of third-party rights during the dispute could affect the commercial position of the parties in ways that monetary compensation might not adequately address.
The Court therefore partly allowed the petition. It restrained the producer, subject to the agreement and the arbitral tribunal’s orders, from creating third-party rights concerning the co-producer’s claimed interest. It also directed the disclosure of documents relating to the utilisation of the funds received and required the production accounts and financial records contemplated by the agreement.
Importantly, the Court did not finally determine the validity of termination, the parties’ ultimate entitlements, or the precise share to which the co-producer would be entitled. Nor did it grant the requested relief directing complete performance of the agreement or restraining the producer from acting upon the termination in the form sought. Those matters remained open for arbitration.
The decision illustrates the distinction between preserving disputed rights and finally adjudicating them. Interim protection is intended to prevent the subject matter of a dispute from being prejudiced while the substantive issues await determination.
Implications for Intellectual Property Agreements
The commercial implications extend beyond the film industry. In technology collaborations, software development, research partnerships, licensing arrangements, and joint ventures, intellectual property may represent a substantial part of the value created by the parties.
Agreements governing such relationships should expressly address whether IP ownership vests upon execution, upon payment, or upon fulfilment of specified milestones. They should also clarify the consequences of partial funding, delayed performance, termination, and outstanding financial obligations. Where rights are jointly owned, the agreement should define the extent to which either party may independently license, assign, transfer, or otherwise exploit those rights.
Equally, businesses should establish clear procedures for issuing default notices and calculating cure periods. A termination notice should identify the contractual basis of the alleged breach and provide the opportunity required by the agreement. The parties should also preserve relevant financial records and comply with contractual obligations concerning accounts, disclosures, and the use of invested funds.
These safeguards do not eliminate the possibility of litigation or arbitration. They do, however, reduce ambiguity and provide a more reliable framework for resolving disputes without unnecessarily jeopardising the underlying IP assets.
Conclusion
The significance of VVAA Films Private Limited v. DUNE Collective LLP lies in its examination of the relationship between contractual default, termination procedure, and the preservation of disputed intellectual property rights. The Bombay High Court’s interim findings emphasise that an alleged breach does not automatically justify disregarding the procedure agreed upon for termination.
For businesses, the lesson is clear. Intellectual property agreements must define not only who owns or exploits the IP, but also how those rights are affected when the commercial relationship breaks down. Termination provisions, cure periods, payment conditions, ownership clauses, and restrictions on third-party dealings must operate as parts of a coherent contractual framework.
A termination clause is not merely an exit provision. In an intellectual property agreement, it can determine who retains control over the asset, who may commercially exploit it, and whether the parties’ rights remain capable of effective protection.
Share your opinion/ feedback, write to the author at contact@sudhamanjulajha.com and/or WhatsApp on+91-8929203324
-
The Hidden Intellectual Property Assets In Your Business: What Companies Often Fail To Protect
The Intellectual Property You May Not Know You Own
When businesses think of intellectual property (IP), they often associate it with high-profile patent disputes, globally recognised trademarks or breakthrough technological inventions. Intellectual property is frequently perceived as a concern for technology companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and businesses with substantial research and development budgets. This perception overlooks a much broader commercial reality. Established companies, manufacturing enterprises, business-to-business service providers and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) may possess valuable intellectual assets without recognising them as such.
An enterprise need not develop a revolutionary invention to create commercially significant intellectual property. It may derive its competitive advantage from an optimised manufacturing process, a proprietary pricing model, specialised technical drawings, a customised software application or a carefully developed network of customer relationships.
The critical question, therefore, is not whether a business conducts high-technology research. It is whether the business creates, uses or controls information, designs, processes or distinctive commercial identifiers that contribute to its competitive position. Consider a manufacturing enterprise that has developed a production method which consistently reduces material wastage, improves output quality and shortens delivery time. Its competitor may possess comparable machinery, employ equally qualified personnel and purchase raw materials from the same suppliers. Yet, it may struggle to match the enterprise’s performance because it lacks the accumulated technical knowledge underlying that process.
Where does the competitive advantage reside? Often, it lies not in the machinery itself, but in the knowledge of how to use it more effectively. Such assets may remain invisible in conventional discussions about intellectual property. Nevertheless, they can influence profitability, operational efficiency, customer retention and business valuation. Failure to identify them can expose an enterprise to unnecessary competitive risks and weaken its ability to protect the results of its own investment.
Intellectual Property Beyond Patents and Trademarks
Intellectual property is not a single category of business asset. It encompasses different forms of intangible subject matter, each governed by distinct legal principles, eligibility requirements and conditions of protection.Patents may protect qualifying inventions, including novel and inventive technical solutions that satisfy applicable statutory requirements. Trademarks distinguish the goods or services of one enterprise from those of another. Copyright protects original works of authorship, including qualifying software and technical drawings. Industrial design registration protects eligible visual features of an article. Confidential business information and technical know-how may also be protected through contractual and equitable principles relating to confidentiality and breach of confidence.
These categories may overlap in commercial practice, but they are not interchangeable.A technical drawing, for example, may qualify for copyright protection, while the appearance of a product depicted in that drawing may be eligible for design registration. A technical improvement incorporated into the same product may warrant a separate patentability assessment. The manufacturing parameters used to produce it may be better retained as confidential know-how.The strategic challenge is to determine which rights are available, who owns them, how they should be protected and whether the chosen protection mechanism aligns with the business’s commercial objectives.
Does every valuable business asset require registration? Certainly not. Equally, should a company assume that an asset is legally protected merely because it is confidential, commercially useful or internally developed? That would be an equally serious mistake.
Technical Processes and Customised Manufacturing Methods
Manufacturing enterprises frequently develop specialised processes through experimentation, operational experience and incremental improvements. These may include optimised assembly sequences, chemical formulations, machining parameters, quality-control procedures, calibration methods and production techniques that reduce defects or improve resource utilisation.Suppose a manufacturer modifies its production workflow and achieves a substantial reduction in material wastage. The improvement may have resulted from months of engineering trials and investment. A competitor who obtains the underlying method could potentially achieve similar efficiencies without incurring the same development costs.
The commercial value of the process is evident. The legal protection strategy, however, requires careful consideration.Where the process satisfies the requirements of patentability, patent protection may be worth evaluating. The enterprise must weigh the scope and potential enforceability of the patent against the disclosure required in a patent application and the duration of protection available under law. A process that can be reverse-engineered from a marketed product may present a different strategic situation from one that remains difficult to discover externally.Alternatively, a process may be maintained as a trade secret, provided the enterprise can preserve its confidentiality and establish appropriate safeguards. In India, trade secret protection does not rest on a single, comprehensive trade secret statute. It is supported by contractual obligations, principles governing breach of confidence and other applicable legal remedies.
Consequently, the practical protection of confidential processes depends significantly on the circumstances, evidence and safeguards maintained by the business.Non-disclosure agreements, restricted access, confidentiality classifications, employee obligations and secure technical documentation can form part of this framework. However, an agreement alone is not a substitute for genuine confidentiality measures.A business must therefore ask itself: if a key engineer leaves tomorrow, could the enterprise demonstrate what information was confidential, why it was commercially valuable and what reasonable steps were taken to protect it?
Technical Drawings, CAD Files and Product Designs
Technical drawings and computer-aided design (CAD) files are essential to many engineering and manufacturing businesses. They may contain precise dimensions, component arrangements, tolerances, assembly instructions and other information required to manufacture or maintain a product. Their significance extends beyond the immediate production process. These files may embody substantial engineering effort and provide a competitor or an unauthorised contract manufacturer with a practical route to reproducing a product. Copyright may protect original technical drawings as artistic works, subject to the applicable statutory requirements. However, ownership of copyright in a drawing does not automatically confer exclusive rights over every functional idea, method or product feature depicted in it. Nor should copyright in a drawing be treated as a universal substitute for industrial design registration or patent protection.
Under India’s Designs Act, 2000, registration may protect eligible features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article that appeal to and are judged solely by the eye. It does not protect a mere mechanical device or principle of construction as such. Further, Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957, creates an important interaction between copyright and industrial designs. Copyright does not subsist under that Act in a design registered under the Designs Act, and copyright in an eligible but unregistered design ceases once an article bearing it has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the copyright owner or a licensee.These distinctions make early protection planning particularly important for businesses engaged in serial manufacturing. The enterprise should identify whether it needs protection for the visual appearance of a product, the original drawings used to represent it, a technical invention or confidential manufacturing information.There is another frequently overlooked issue: ownership. If an external designer, consultant or contract manufacturer prepared the CAD files, has the company obtained the necessary intellectual property rights in writing, or does it merely possess permission to use the files for a limited purpose?Possession of a file is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the rights embodied in it.
Bespoke Software and Internal Digital Tools
Software is no longer confined to technology companies. Manufacturers, logistics businesses, distributors, engineering firms and professional service providers increasingly rely on internally developed applications to manage inventory, automate workflows, monitor equipment, analyse costs and coordinate customer relationships. Such tools may provide a meaningful operational advantage even if they are never sold commercially. A customised application that reduces processing time, improves forecasting or integrates multiple production systems may be as strategically important to its developer as a customer-facing software product is to a technology company. Copyright may protect original computer program code. However, it does not ordinarily grant exclusive rights over an abstract business idea, algorithm or functionality merely because that concept has been implemented in software.
Patent protection requires a separate and careful assessment. Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, excludes a mathematical or business method, a computer programme per se and algorithms from patentability. The mere fact that software is useful, commercially valuable or technically sophisticated does not establish that it qualifies for a patent. The relevant technical contribution and the applicable legal requirements must be examined in the context of the claimed invention. Companies should also investigate the ownership of software developed by employees, consultants and external vendors. Development contracts should address intellectual property ownership, permitted reuse, third-party components, open-source licensing obligations, access to source code and the handover of technical documentation.Can a company confidently claim ownership of its internal software if the original developer retains the source code, the contract contains no clear assignment clause and the business has never reviewed the applicable licences? Such gaps can become particularly consequential during investment due diligence, acquisitions or disputes with service providers.
Proprietary Databases, Customer Information and Commercial Intelligence
Customer records, supplier databases, pricing histories, purchasing patterns, production telemetry and market intelligence can represent years of investment. Their value may lie not in any single entry but in the way information is collected, organised, validated and used to make commercial decisions.A well-maintained database can help a company identify profitable customer segments, anticipate demand, negotiate with suppliers and develop more accurate pricing strategies. Competitors who obtain the same information may gain an advantage without replicating the time and resources required to assemble it.
Yet, not every database is automatically protected as an exclusive intellectual property asset. India does not provide a general, standalone sui generis database right equivalent to the specific database rights available in certain other jurisdictions. Protection may instead arise through copyright in an original selection or arrangement, confidentiality obligations, contractual restrictions and other applicable laws, depending on the nature of the information and the circumstances of its use. The underlying information must also be distinguished from the database structure in which it is stored. Copyright in an original arrangement does not automatically confer exclusive ownership of every individual fact contained in the database.
Privacy and data-protection obligations must be considered separately wherever personal data is involved. A company cannot assume that labelling customer information as a trade secret overrides applicable legal obligations governing the collection, use, disclosure or retention of that information.The appropriate strategy may therefore combine access restrictions, role-based permissions, contractual controls, cybersecurity measures, data governance and careful documentation of ownership and permitted use.A useful question for management is this: if a competitor acquired the company’s customer and pricing database, what would it cost the business in lost customers, weakened bargaining power and diminished market advantage? The answer can help determine the level of protection the information deserves.
Unregistered Brand Names, Product Lines and Commercial Identity
A company may register its principal corporate name or logo while overlooking the individual names under which its products are sold. Product-line names, service brands, distinctive slogans and other commercial identifiers may develop independent recognition among customers.The resulting goodwill can be commercially significant. Customers may associate a particular product name with reliability, technical performance or after-sales service without necessarily knowing the name of the parent company.Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a trademark may take several forms, including words, logos, shapes of goods or packaging and certain combinations of colours, subject to the statutory requirements.
Registration can provide important advantages in establishing and enforcing rights in relation to the specified goods or services. Unregistered marks may also receive protection under applicable common-law principles, including passing off, where the necessary elements are established.The scope of protection depends on factors such as distinctiveness, existing third-party rights, the goods or services concerned and the territories in which the business operates. Registration should therefore be preceded by appropriate searches and a considered assessment of the intended commercial use.Export-oriented enterprises face an additional challenge. A brand used successfully in India may encounter conflicting rights in another jurisdiction. Registration in one country does not automatically confer equivalent rights worldwide.
Businesses should accordingly assess their principal brands, sub-brands and important product identifiers as part of a broader intellectual property strategy. Packaging and product appearance may also require separate assessment under design law, trademark law or other applicable legal principles.The central question is whether the company’s legal protection reflects the commercial identity that customers actually recognise, or merely the corporate identity that appears on its letterhead.
Confidential Know-How and Organisational Knowledge
Not all commercially valuable knowledge exists in a formal document or technical database. In many enterprises, operational expertise is accumulated through experience. A technician may know how to calibrate a machine under unusual conditions; a service engineer may understand recurring equipment failures; or an experienced commercial employee may know how to resolve complex customer requirements efficiently.
Such knowledge can be difficult to reproduce and may contribute substantially to the enterprise’s performance. It is nevertheless vulnerable when it remains concentrated in a few individuals. The departure of a key employee may result in the loss of institutional knowledge. More seriously, confidential information may be disclosed or misused if the enterprise has not established clear obligations and practical safeguards.
Companies should distinguish between general professional skills and experience that an employee acquires during employment, on the one hand, and identifiable confidential business information, on the other. Employers cannot assume that all knowledge acquired by an employee becomes their exclusive property, nor can confidentiality language automatically prevent a former employee from exercising ordinary professional skills.
A more effective approach is to document critical processes through standard operating procedures, technical manuals, troubleshooting records and controlled knowledge repositories. Employment agreements, consultancy contracts and vendor arrangements should contain appropriately drafted confidentiality and intellectual property provisions. Access to genuinely sensitive information should be limited to those who require it for their work. Restrictive covenants, including non-solicitation provisions, require separate legal scrutiny under the applicable law. They should not be treated as automatically enforceable merely because they appear in a contract. Ultimately, protecting organisational knowledge involves more than requiring employees to sign agreements. It requires the enterprise to identify what must remain confidential, explain the obligations clearly and implement systems that preserve the information without unnecessarily impeding legitimate business operations.
Ownership: The Often-Overlooked Foundation of IP Protection
A company may have developed an excellent product, commissioned sophisticated technical drawings and invested heavily in software development, yet still face uncertainty about who owns the resulting intellectual property.
The problem frequently arises through incomplete contractual arrangements. A freelancer creates a logo, a consultant develops a manufacturing process, a software vendor builds an internal application or a contract manufacturer modifies a product design. The business pays the agreed fee and assumes that all associated intellectual property rights have automatically transferred to it.
That assumption may be incorrect. Ownership depends on the applicable law, the nature of the work, the relationship between the parties and the terms of the relevant agreement. Different statutory rules may apply to different categories of intellectual property. A contract should therefore specify the intended ownership of deliverables and underlying rights, any assignment or licence, the scope of permitted use, confidentiality obligations and responsibilities for third-party materials.
Existing agreements should also be examined for gaps in the chain of title. Where appropriate, businesses may need written assignments, confirmatory instruments, licence clarifications or other documentation to establish their rights. This issue is not confined to disputes. Uncertainty over ownership can complicate investment transactions, licensing negotiations, commercial collaborations and business acquisitions. A prospective investor may be less concerned with the number of intellectual assets a company claims to possess than with whether the company can demonstrate that it owns or lawfully controls them. An intellectual property asset is commercially useful, but an uncertain chain of title can substantially diminish its practical value.
The Intellectual Property Audit: From Identification to Strategy
How can management identify these assets systematically rather than waiting for a dispute to reveal their importance? An intellectual property audit provides a structured starting point. It involves examining the company’s intangible assets, ownership arrangements, existing registrations, contractual obligations, confidentiality practices and potential legal exposure. The purpose is not simply to prepare a list of patents and trademarks. It is to establish how intellectual property is created, used, controlled and commercialised throughout the enterprise.
The process should begin with identification. Engineering and research teams can explain the technical processes, drawings, prototypes and improvements developed internally. Marketing and sales teams can identify product names, brand elements, customer intelligence and commercially significant materials. Information technology personnel can identify internally developed software, source code, databases and digital tools. Operations teams can identify specialised procedures, quality-control systems and undocumented technical know-how.
The next stage concerns commercial significance. Management should determine which assets contribute to profitability, product differentiation, customer retention, operational efficiency or future expansion. Not every asset requires the same level of protection. A commercially decisive manufacturing process may justify extensive confidentiality safeguards, while a distinctive product brand may warrant trademark registration in relevant markets.
Ownership and documentation must then be verified. The audit should examine employment agreements, consultancy contracts, vendor arrangements, assignments, licences, existing registrations and any restrictions arising from third-party materials. Public disclosures, product launches, exhibitions, online publication and other disclosures should also be reviewed where they may affect patentability, design registration or confidentiality.
Finally, the company should formulate a protection and commercialisation strategy. This may involve filing patent or design applications, registering trademarks, clarifying copyright ownership, strengthening confidentiality procedures, reviewing software licences or negotiating appropriate contractual protections. Certain assets may also be suitable for licensing or commercial collaboration.The audit should be treated as an ongoing management process rather than a one-time compliance exercise. Changes in products, personnel, markets, technology and commercial relationships can create new assets and new risks. Periodic review helps ensure that the protection strategy continues to reflect the business’s actual operations.
Turning Intellectual Property into Commercial Advantage
Identifying intellectual property is only the first step. Its wider commercial significance emerges when the enterprise integrates IP considerations into product development, procurement, employment, marketing, investment and expansion decisions.
A manufacturer considering a new product line should assess relevant patent and design opportunities before making irreversible public disclosures. A company entering a new market should examine trademark availability and registration requirements before investing heavily in branding. An enterprise outsourcing software development should settle ownership and licensing questions before deployment. A business sharing technical information with a potential partner should determine what can be disclosed, for what purpose and under what safeguards.
These decisions are not solely legal matters. They affect business continuity, negotiation leverage, investment readiness and the ability to prevent competitors from appropriating the results of commercial effort.Intellectual property can also support revenue generation through licensing, technology transfer and collaboration. However, commercialisation requires more than asserting ownership. The business must establish that the relevant rights exist, identify the scope of protection and ensure that any proposed transaction is legally and commercially workable.
Nor should every intangible asset be assumed to possess a readily measurable monetary value. Valuation depends on the asset’s characteristics, legal status, expected economic benefits, market conditions and other relevant factors. An IP audit can help management identify and document assets, but it does not automatically convert every asset into a recognised balance-sheet item.The more defensible conclusion is that sound IP management can improve a company’s ability to preserve and realise the value of its intangible resources.
What Is Your Business Leaving Unprotected? The most consequential intellectual property risks are not always associated with a spectacular patent dispute or the unauthorised use of a famous brand. They may arise from ordinary business practices that management has never examined from an intellectual property perspective.A process refined through years of manufacturing experience, a database built through sustained commercial effort, a distinctive product name, an internally developed software tool or a carefully engineered product design may all contribute to competitive advantage. Yet their legal protection may be incomplete, poorly documented or entirely overlooked.The appropriate response is not to register everything indiscriminately. It is to understand what the business has created, determine which rights are available, establish ownership, assess commercial significance and adopt a proportionate protection strategy.
For manufacturers, established enterprises and MSMEs, an intellectual property audit can help uncover these overlooked assets and expose weaknesses before they develop into costly disputes. It can also support better-informed decisions about innovation, collaboration, expansion and commercialisation.
The essential question for every business is therefore straightforward, if a competitor, former employee or commercial partner obtained access to the knowledge, designs, data and methods that make your business successful, would your company be legally and practically prepared to protect its interests?If management cannot answer that question with confidence, the first step is not necessarily to file another patent or trademark application. It is to discover what the enterprise already owns, what it has the right to use, and what it has failed to protect.
Share your feedback, write to the author at contact@sudhamanjulajha.com and/or WhatsApp on+91-8929203324
-
Patent Assignment and Proof of Right in India
Patent ownership is one of the most important yet frequently misunderstood aspects of Indian patent law. While inventors create inventions, patent applications are often filed by employers, corporations, research institutions, or assignees. In such situations, Indian patent law requires the applicant to establish its legal entitlement to file the patent application.
What Is Patent Assignment?
A patent assignment is the transfer of rights relating to an invention from one person to another. The transfer may occur before a patent is granted, in the form of an assignment of the right to apply for a patent, or after grant, in the form of an assignment of the patent itself.
Under Section 6(1)(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, an assignee of the true and first inventor is entitled to apply for a patent.
Proof of Right Under Section 7(2)
Where a patent application is filed by an assignee rather than the inventor, Section 7(2) requires the applicant to furnish proof of its right to make the application.
The provision does not prescribe a single mandatory form of evidence. The requirement is not merely to produce a particular document but to establish that the right to apply has validly vested in the applicant.
Traditionally, proof of right may be established through:
- Assignment deeds;
- Inventor declarations;
- Employment agreements;
- Corporate intellectual property policies;
- Other documentary evidence demonstrating transfer of rights.
Employment Agreements and Employer Ownership:
Modern innovation is frequently generated within corporations by employees acting in the course of their employment. In such cases, ownership of inventions often vests in the employer pursuant to employment contracts and company intellectual property regulations.
The Delhi High Court in Nippon Steel Corporation v. Controller of Patents (2025) clarified that a duly executed employment agreement, read together with company intellectual property policies and supporting declarations, can constitute sufficient proof of right under Section 7(2). The Court rejected the view that only a separate assignment deed could satisfy the statutory requirement.
A crucial distinction exists between:
- Assignment of the right to apply for a patent; and
- Assignment of a granted patent.
The former is governed principally by Sections 6 and 7 of the Patents Act. The latter falls within Section 68, which deals with assignments, licences, mortgages, and other interests in a granted patent.
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that Section 68 concerns transactions relating to an existing patent and should not be mechanically applied to pre-grant assignments of the right to apply.
The NEC Decision and Inventor Declarations:
In NEC Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents (2023), the Madras High Court clarified another important aspect of proof of right. The Court held that the date on which an inventor signs a declaration is not necessarily the date on which the assignment occurred.
A declaration may merely confirm a prior assignment. Patent authorities must therefore examine the substance of the evidence rather than rely solely upon dates appearing on declarations.
Practical Importance for Patent Applicants:
Patent applicants should ensure that documentary evidence establishing ownership is available at the time of filing or within the prescribed statutory period. Employment agreements, assignment deeds and internal intellectual property policies should be maintained carefully and produced whenever necessary. Applicants must maintain a clear documentary trail showing how rights passed from the inventor to the applicant.
-
What Are Standard Essential Patents? How Modern Technology Depends on SEPs
Modern technology depends not merely on innovation, but on standardization. Every day, billions of devices manufactured by different companies communicate seamlessly across networks, platforms, and borders. Smartphones connect to cellular towers, laptops access Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth earphones pair instantly with mobile devices, and streaming services deliver compressed video content compatible across countless screens. Such interoperability is possible because industries adopt common technical standards. Behind many of these standards lies a highly significant category of intellectual property known as Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
A Standard Essential Patent is a patent that protects a technology considered indispensable for implementing a technical standard adopted by a Standard Setting Organization (SSO). In simple terms, once a patented invention becomes part of an officially recognized technical standard, manufacturers complying with that standard may have no practical option but to use the patented technology. The patent thereby becomes “essential” to the standard itself. Unlike ordinary patents, which competitors may design around or avoid entirely, SEPs often become unavoidable for participation within a technological ecosystem.
To understand this distinction, it is useful to compare a conventional patent with an SEP. Suppose a company develops a new wireless signal processing method and obtains a patent over it. If manufacturers can continue producing devices without adopting that technology, the patent remains an ordinary patent. However, if a Standard Setting Organization later incorporates that technology into an official communication standard, such as a 5G protocol, every manufacturer seeking compliance with the standard may be required to implement the patented invention. At that stage, the patent acquires the status of a Standard Essential Patent.
SEPs are especially prominent in the telecommunications industry. Modern mobile communication systems, including 3G, 4G LTE, and 5G, operate through globally harmonized technical standards developed by organizations such as 3GPP and ITU. These standards define complex mechanisms relating to signal encoding, spectrum efficiency, network access, handovers between cellular towers, and data transmission protocols. Many of these technological solutions are patented. When incorporated into the standard, they become SEPs. Consequently, manufacturers producing standards-compliant mobile devices must obtain licenses to such patents. This explains why SEP disputes have become common among major technology companies such as Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, and Huawei.
Wireless communication technologies provide another significant example of SEPs in practice. Wi-Fi standards developed under the IEEE 802.11 framework ensure that devices manufactured by different companies can communicate through common wireless protocols. If a patented method governing wireless synchronization, interference reduction, or packet transmission becomes integrated into the Wi-Fi standard, manufacturers of laptops, routers, smart televisions, and mobile devices may all require licenses to that patented technology. The same principle applies to Bluetooth standards governing short-range wireless communication between devices such as earphones, smartwatches, automobiles, and keyboards.
The role of SEPs extends far beyond telecommunications. Modern audio and video compression technologies also rely heavily on standardized systems. Formats such as MP3, AAC, and HEVC/H.265 enable efficient storage and transmission of multimedia data across devices and streaming platforms. These standards often incorporate patented compression algorithms designed to reduce bandwidth consumption while preserving quality. Once included within the standard, such patents become essential for compliant implementation. As a result, SEP licensing disputes frequently arise in industries involving smartphones, smart televisions, video conferencing platforms, and digital streaming services.
Hardware connectivity standards similarly involve SEP-related technologies. USB standards governing data transfer, charging protocols, and connector compatibility may incorporate patented communication or power management technologies. If compliance with the USB standard necessarily requires use of a patented invention, that patent may qualify as an SEP. This ensures that devices manufactured by different companies remain interoperable while simultaneously creating licensing obligations for implementers of the standard.
The automotive industry has also emerged as an important arena for SEP licensing. Modern vehicles increasingly function as connected digital systems equipped with navigation technologies, telematics, vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems, and internet-enabled services. Standards governing these technologies may incorporate patented communication protocols essential for interoperability and network compatibility. Consequently, automobile manufacturers such as Toyota, BMW, and Ford Motor Company have increasingly encountered SEP licensing negotiations and litigation.
Similarly, the expanding ecosystem of smart devices and the Internet of Things (IoT) depends upon standardized communication protocols enabling interoperability among connected products. Smart home devices, industrial sensors, wearable technologies, and intelligent appliances all rely on shared technical standards. If patented low-power communication technologies or synchronization methods become mandatory components of those standards, the underlying patents become standard-essential.
The legal significance of SEPs lies in the unique market power they can create. Ordinarily, a patent holder may freely decide whether to license its invention. However, where a patent becomes essential to an industry standard, refusal to license may effectively block competitors from participating in the market altogether. This creates the risk of excessive royalty demands, anti-competitive conduct, or exclusionary practices. To address these concerns, Standard Setting Organizations typically require SEP holders to commit to licensing their patents on FRAND terms, meaning Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory terms.
The FRAND framework seeks to balance two competing objectives. On one hand, innovators must receive adequate incentives and compensation for their technological contributions. On the other hand, implementers of standards must retain fair access to essential technologies necessary for market participation and consumer interoperability. FRAND obligations therefore attempt to prevent both patent hold-up by SEP owners and strategic hold-out by implementers seeking to delay or avoid licensing obligations.
Today, Standard Essential Patents occupy a central position at the intersection of intellectual property law, competition law, technological governance, and global commerce. As industries become increasingly interconnected and dependent on standardized digital infrastructure, disputes relating to SEP licensing, royalty calculation, injunctions, and FRAND compliance are likely to grow in importance. In many respects, SEPs represent the legal architecture underlying the modern digital economy, enabling interoperability while simultaneously raising some of the most complex regulatory and commercial questions in contemporary patent law.
-
Step-by-Step Guide To Trademark Registration In India
Contents Ahead:
▪︎Step by step process and other requirements for registration of a trademark
▪︎Why trademark application gets rejected
▪︎Common mistakes at each stage that can hinder your trademark registration
▪︎Information required for filing a trademark application
▪︎Particulars and documents required
▪︎Additional requirements in case of prior use or convention applicationsGet Help Now – Register Your Brand With:
•Comprehensive trademark Search •Class selection and Strategy
•Objection and hearing support
•End-to-end legal handling
Connect with us on WhatsApp💬 Chat on WhatsAppA business name, logo, or brand identity is often treated as a marketing asset. In law, however, it is something far more fragile. Until registered, it remains vulnerable, capable of being adopted, challenged, or even legally appropriated by another party. Trademark registration is not merely procedural compliance. It is the process through which a business converts reputation into an enforceable legal monopoly. This guide explains the actual legal process of trademark registration in India
The trademark registration process in India is a crucial step for businesses and individuals who wish to protect their brand identity. Governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it ensures that logos, names, symbols, or taglines that distinguish goods or services are legally safeguarded against misuse.
The entire Trademark Registration Process often ends up being much more complex than generally understood and might require legal attention at various stage of the process. Following are the various stages in concise form for better understanding.
Trademark Search: The process begins with a trademark search on the official IP India website to check whether the proposed mark is unique and not already in use. This step helps avoid conflicts and saves time during registration.
Trademark Application: Once the search confirms availability, the next step is to file a trademark application in form TM-A online or offline with the Trade Marks Registry by submitting the applicant’s details, class number in which goods or services belongs, and a clear representation of the trademark alongwith govt. fees. The govt. fees differs according to the category in which the Applicant belongs to. For Individual/Startup/Small enterprise the govt. fees for online filing is ₹ 4,500/- and for other cases it is ₹ 9,000/-
Examination & Objection: After filing, the application goes through examination by the Registrar, who checks for compliance with legal provisions and identifies any similarity with existing trademarks. If objections arise, the applicant must submit a legally sound written reply and if required also attend a hearing to clarify their case.
Publication & Grant: Once the application passes this stage, it is published in the Trade Marks Journal for a period of four months. This allows third parties to file an opposition if they believe the mark infringes on their rights. If no opposition is filed, or if the matter is resolved in favor of the applicant, the trademark proceeds to registration.
Registration & Renewal: On successful registration, the applicant receives a trademark registration certificate, granting them exclusive rights to use the mark for the specified goods or services. The trademark remains valid for 10 years from the date of application and can be renewed indefinitely in further blocks of ten years with timely renewal applications.
Before going further, let’s glance at Why Trademark Registration Gets Rejected:
•Incorrect class selection
•Weak or descriptive marks (Section 9 issues)
•Similar existing trademarks (Section 11 conflicts)
•Improper trademark search
•Filing under wrong applicant name (individual vs entity mismatch)Common mistakes at each stage that can hinder your trademark registration:
At Search Stage
- Relying only on basic public search
- Ignoring phonetic similarity
At Filing Stage
- Wrong class selection
- Improper description of goods/services
At Examination Stage
- Poorly drafted objection replies
- Missing deadlines
At Opposition Stage
- Ignoring published opposition notices
- Not responding within statutory period
Information Required for Filing a Trademark Application:
Hence, trademark application in India typically proceeds to registration over a span of roughly six to seven months, subject to procedural compliance and absence of objections or oppositions.
To initiate a trademark application in India, the following particulars and documents are required:
Core Requirements
- The trademark, logo, or word mark proposed for registration
- Details of the applicant, including name, address, and nationality; in the case of a company, the jurisdiction of incorporation
- Nature of the applicant entity, whether individual, startup/small enterprise, or other entity category
- The relevant class along with a clear specification of goods or services
- A duly executed power of attorney in favour of the authorised representative
Additional requirements in case of prior use or convention applications
- The date on which the trademark was first used in India, where prior use is claimed
- An affidavit affirming such prior use, supported by documentary evidence establishing commercial use of the mark
- Priority claim details, including application number, filing date, and country of origin, where applicable
- A certified copy of the priority document in convention-based filings
Clarification on formal documentation:
Affidavit of Use
Under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, any application asserting prior use must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit substantiating such use. This affidavit must be filed together with documentary evidence demonstrating actual and continuous use of the mark in relation to the specified goods or services in India.Power of Attorney
A power of attorney authorising representation is required at the time of filing. This document may be executed by any duly authorised signatory of the applicant entity. Notarisation or legalisation is not mandated.Priority Documents
Where a priority claim is invoked based on a convention application, a certified copy of the priority document must be submitted. In the event of non-submission at the time of filing, the Trade Marks Registry may issue a formal notice requiring submission within the prescribed period.Registering a trademark not only provides legal protection but also helps in building brand recognition, consumer trust, and a stronger market presence. For entrepreneurs, startups, and established companies alike, understanding how to register a trademark in India is essential for long-term brand security.
-
Free Speech, Criminal Thresholds, and Judicial Control
With increasing instances of criminal proceedings arising out of social media expression, the boundary between protected speech and penal liability has become both contested and consequential. The question is no longer abstract, it is doctrinal, where exactly does the law draw the line between expression and offence. The Supreme Court’s decision in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025) engaged directly with this question. At its core, the case tests whether criminal law can be invoked against poetic expression without satisfying the essential elements embedded in both the Constitution and penal statutes.
The prosecution arose from a video posted on social media containing a poem, which was alleged to promote communal disharmony, affect national unity, and hurt religious sentiments. The High Court declined to interfere at the threshold, relying primarily on the pendency of investigation. The Supreme Court was therefore required to determine whether, even on a plain reading of the material, the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences were disclosed.
The Court’s analysis is firmly anchored in the constitutional structure of Article 19. While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, restrictions under Article 19(2) operate as narrowly tailored exceptions. This structural hierarchy informs the interpretation of all speech-related offences, which cannot be applied in a manner that dilutes the primacy of the right itself.
Against this backdrop, the Court examined the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, particularly Sections 196, 197, and 299. A consistent doctrinal thread runs through these provisions, criminal liability arises only where speech is directed against identifiable groups on protected grounds, carries a real tendency to create enmity or disturb public order, and is accompanied by the requisite intention. Mere offensiveness, dissent, or strong expression does not satisfy this threshold.
Applying this framework, the Court undertook a contextual reading of the poem and found no reference to any religion, caste, or community, no incitement to violence, and no material indicating an intention to promote disharmony. The expression, read as a whole, conveyed resistance to injustice through non-violence. On this basis, the Court held that none of the alleged offences were attracted.
In doing so, the Court reaffirmed two critical interpretive safeguards. First, speech must be evaluated from the standpoint of a reasonable, firm-minded individual, not through the lens of hypersensitivity or subjective offence. Second, mens rea remains indispensable in speech offences, intention cannot be presumed from isolated or strained readings of the content.
The judgment also carries important procedural implications. Interpreting Section 173(3) of the BNSS, the Court emphasised that in offences punishable up to seven years, particularly those involving speech, the police are empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether a prima facie case exists. This mechanism is not merely procedural, it serves as a constitutional safeguard against the mechanical invocation of criminal law in matters of expression.
Equally significant is the Court’s rejection of the view that the stage of investigation limits judicial intervention. Where the basic ingredients of an offence are absent on the face of the record, the continuation of proceedings itself constitutes an abuse of process. In such cases, the High Court is not only empowered, but obligated, to intervene at the threshold.
The decision thus restores doctrinal clarity in an area increasingly susceptible to overreach. By insisting on strict adherence to statutory ingredients, contextual interpretation, and the centrality of intent, the Court repositions criminal law within its legitimate domain, the regulation of harm, not the policing of disagreement.
At a broader level, the judgment underscored a constitutional caution. If speech offences are allowed to operate on subjective perceptions of offence or speculative harm, the exception under Article 19(2) risks subsuming the guarantee under Article 19(1)(a). The discipline imposed by this decision lies precisely in preventing that inversion.
-
Delhi HC on Injunctions When Patent Granted Is Near Expiry [Pharma Litigation]
In Pharma patent disputes the closer a patent moves towards expiry, the more pressing becomes the question whether injunctive relief continues to serve any meaningful legal purpose.
The issue before the Delhi High Court Division Bench was whether refusal of interim injunction in a patent infringement action warranted appellate interference, where a validity challenge had been raised and the patent was nearing expiry.
Essential Facts
The appellant asserted infringement of its patent covering Semaglutide. The respondents did not seriously contest acts amounting to infringement, but resisted relief by invoking invalidity under Section 64.
The learned Single Judge found a credible challenge to validity and declined injunction. By the time of appeal, the patent had approximately two months of life remaining.
The governing principles are settled:
•defendant may rely on any ground under Section 64 as a defence under Section 107
•At the interim stage, a credible challenge suffices
•Appellate review of such orders is limited by the Wander standard, permitting interference only where discretion is exercised perversely or contrary to law.
The analysis engages:
- Section 48, conferring exclusive rights
- Section 64(1)(a), (e), (f), governing revocation
- Section 107(1), incorporating these grounds as defences
The Court underscores a critical distinction, Section 64(1)(a) requires strict claim identity, whereas Sections 64(1)(e) and (f) operate through broader concepts of anticipation and obviousness.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court declines interference on two interlinked grounds.
First, applying the Wander principle, it finds no error in the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge.
Second, it affirms that a credible challenge to validity exists under Section 64(1)(f). The prior art disclosed the structural framework from which the claimed invention could be derived through a substitution already contemplated within its teaching. This, in the Court’s view, rendered the invention prima facie obvious to a person skilled in the art, or more appropriately, a “person in the know”.
Crucially, the Court introduces an additional consideration. With the patent on the verge of expiry, the grant of injunction would yield no substantive or enduring benefit, thereby undermining the claim of irreparable harm.
The judgment performs two important clarificatory functions.
It restores doctrinal precision by separating anticipation by prior claiming from obviousness, rejecting any attempt to collapse the former into an enabling disclosure analysis.
More significantly, it recalibrates the application of interim relief principles. While not altering the established triad governing injunctions, the Court integrates proximity to patent expiry into the assessment of irreparable injury and balance of convenience. This marks a shift from purely rights-based enforcement towards a more context-sensitive exercise of discretion.
The decision leaves open questions as to the extent to which proximity to expiry should systematically influence interim relief. It does not delineate whether such reasoning is confined to exceptional cases or capable of broader application.
Further, the relationship between residual patent value and equitable protection remains unexplored, particularly in high-value pharmaceutical markets.
The immediate consequence is a heightened threshold for obtaining interim injunctions in late-stage patent life. Patent holders may find exclusivity increasingly difficult to enforce as expiry approaches, especially where defendants can articulate a plausible invalidity challenge.
For defendants, the decision reinforces the strategic value of raising credible, even if not conclusive, validity objections at the interlocutory stage.
The judgment does not dilute patent rights, but places their interim enforcement within a framework that accounts for timing, utility, and judicial economy.
In doing so, it affirms that interlocutory relief in patent law is not merely a function of entitlement, but of contextual justification.
Leave your suggestion and comments on WhatsApp no. +91-8929203324
-
Dominant Feature and Phonetic Similarity in Composite Trade Marks
The dispute in Asian Paints Limited v. Tarun Paints Private Limited [Delhi High Court Judgment (2026)] arose from allegations by Asian Paints Limited that the mark “ASIA TUFF,” used by Tarun Paints Private Limited, infringed its registered trademark “ASIAN PAINTS.” The plaintiff contended that the word “ASIAN” constituted the dominant and distinctive element of its composite mark and that the defendant’s adoption of the word “ASIA” represented a deliberate approximation designed to capitalise on the goodwill attached to the plaintiff’s brand.
The case required the court to apply the settled test of deceptive similarity, namely whether an average consumer with imperfect recollection would likely be misled by the defendant’s mark. While composite marks must generally be evaluated in their entirety, the court reiterated that particular emphasis may be placed on the dominant or essential feature of a mark, especially where other components are descriptive in nature.
Within this framework, the phonetic and visual proximity between the words “ASIAN” and “ASIA” became central to the dispute. Given that both parties operated in relation to identical goods, namely paints and allied products, the court examined whether the similarity in the principal element of the marks could create a likelihood of confusion or association in the marketplace.
The judgment thus reinforces a familiar strand of Indian trademark jurisprudence: the assessment of similarity is ultimately contextual and consumer-centric. Even relatively small variations in wording may assume significance where the dominant feature of a well-known mark is reproduced in a competing mark used for the same class of goods
-
Calcutta High Court On Whether The Patent Office Can Merge Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition? And How This Impacts Future Pre Grant Oppositions
The judgment in UPL vs Haryana Pesticides (2026), decided on 5 February 2026 by the Calcutta High Court’s Intellectual Property Rights Division, examines a crucial procedural question under the Patents Act, 1970 arising from the rejection of UPL’s patent application for “Herbicidal Combinations” following a pre-grant opposition. The Court set aside the rejection order on grounds of procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. This judgment reinforces the structural separation between patent examination and pre-grant opposition proceedings, clarifies that a requested Section 14 hearing cannot be bypassed for administrative convenience, and firmly reiterates that reasoned, independent decision-making is foundational to patent adjudication in India.
The central issue was whether the Controller of Patents could dispose of examination proceedings under Sections 14 and 15 and pre-grant opposition proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act through a single composite order, without granting separate hearings. The Court had to determine whether such a procedure violated the statutory scheme of the Act and the principles of natural justice.
The judgment clearly demarcates the distinction between examination proceedings and pre-grant opposition proceedings. It reinforces that procedural safeguards under the Patents Act are mandatory and clarifies the limited role of a pre-grant opponent in patent examination. It strengthens the requirement that quasi-judicial patent decisions must be reasoned and speaking orders and it serves as an important precedent for patent prosecution and opposition practice in India.
Facts:
UPL Limited filed a patent application on 26 March 2018 titled “Herbicidal Combinations”. The application was published on 27 September 2019 and First Examination Report was issued on 24 January 2020. Thereafter UPL filed its response to the FER on 22 July 2020 and specifically requested a hearing under Section 14.
Respondent No. 1 filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) on 30 September 2020. Additional prior art documents D3 to D5 were introduced in the opposition, which were not part of the FER. A hearing on the pre-grant opposition and a single composite order dated 27 April 2023 rejected the patent application on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and Section 3(e) being a mere admixture.
UPL challenged this rejection before the Calcutta High Court and the issues Before the Court included:
Whether examination proceedings under Sections 14–15 and pre-grant opposition proceedings under Section 25(1) are distinct statutory stages.
Whether the Controller was required to grant separate hearings under Section 14 and Section 25(1).
Whether passing a composite order violated the scheme of the Patents Act.
Whether failure to supply prior art D4 and consideration of new prior arts without adequate opportunity violated natural justice.
Whether the impugned order was a valid speaking order with independent reasoning.
Whether a pre-grant opponent has a right to participate in examination proceedings.
The Decision:
The Court held that Sections 14–15 (examination stage) and Section 25(1) (pre-grant opposition stage) are distinct and independent proceedings under the Patents Act, 1970. The statutory scheme does not contemplate merger of these processes
Since the appellant had expressly requested a hearing under Section 14, the Controller was obligated to grant it. Failure to do so and passing a combined order constituted procedural impropriety. The Court relied upon S.N. Mukherjee vs Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that recording reasons is an essential facet of natural justice in quasi-judicial decisions.The High Court found that the Controller’s order lacked independent reasoning and mechanically adopted the opponent’s submissions. The Court relied heavily on Novartis AG vs Natco Pharma Limited, which clarified that the examination process is an independent statutory duty of the Controller. A pre-grant opponent has a right of hearing only in opposition proceedings. The opponent cannot claim participatory rights in the examination process. The two processes must remain structurally distinct. The Court also referred to Gilead Pharmasset, LLC vs Union of India & Anr., which emphasised that procedural violations affecting natural justice justify setting aside patent decisions.
The Court concluded that the composite order failed to demarcate findings under Sections 15 and 25(1). The applicant was prejudiced by consideration of additional prior art without separate hearing. The matter required fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order dated 27 April 2023 was set aside. The matter was remanded to a different Controller. Fresh hearing under proper statutory procedure was directed. The Court did not decide patentability on merits.
Impact on other pending pre-grant oppositions includes:
Mandatory Hearing Separation: The ruling establishes that if a patent applicant expressly requests a Section 14 hearing(examination stage), the Controller cannot bypass it by only holding a combined pre-grant opposition hearing. Pending cases where such a request was made but ignored are now highly vulnerable to being set aside on appeal.
Identifiable Findings: Even if a “common order” is passed for administrative ease, it must now clearly demarcate which portions relate to Section 15 (rejection by the Office) and which relate to Section 25(1) (opposition by a third party). Orders that conflate these findings can be challenged as lacking independent reasoning.
Introduction of New Prior Art: The court highlighted that introducing new prior art during the opposition stage requires a fair rebuttal opportunity for the applicant. Pending oppositions where new evidence was introduced without a chance for the applicant to amend claims or provide separate data are likely to be remanded for fresh consideration.
Share your thoughts on WhatsApp +91-8929203324
-
Supreme Court On Fixing Minimum Wages Of Domestic Workers
Does the Constitution guarantee minimum wages to domestic workers? The Supreme Court answered this in 2026. In Thozhilalargal Sangam & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 42/2026], case filed with the aim that Domestic workers should be covered under minimum wage laws. That minimum wages should be declared a fundamental right, directions be issued to Centre and States to fix wages and grant protection under labour laws
On 29 January 2026, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that implementing minimum wages is a legislative and executive matter best left to State authorities.
The Apex court while observing that domestic workers are vulnerable reasoned that wage fixation is a legislative function and courts cannot force law-making, while the policy decisions lie with Parliament and States
The Court expressed concern that mandatory wage fixation for households could lead to trade unions dragging “every household” into litigation, potentially discouraging people from hiring domestic help
Supreme Court refused to fix minimum wages, did not declare it a fundamental right and the petition disposed of
Share you opinion with the author by leaving a WhatsApp message on +91-8929203324
Laws…Analysis…Updates…And More
