This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Avani Marudwar, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 31 August 2026 – 6 September 2026

CGPDTM calls for comments on draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceutical Patent Applications

The Indian Patent Office has released Draft Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications in the Pharmaceutical Sector, providing specific guidance on the examination of pharmaceutical inventions. The Guidelines bring together the requirements for patentability, including novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability and exclusions under Section 3 of the Patents Act. They provide pharmaceutical-specific examples to assist Examiners in applying these requirements. The Guidelines draw on landmark judgements, particularly on the examination of incremental pharmaceutical inventions and the application of Section 3(d). They discuss Novartis AG v. Union of India in relation to the requirement of enhanced therapeutic efficacy for new forms of known substances. The Guidelines also incorporate judicial approaches to assessing inventive step and clarify that these approaches are intended to guide examination rather than operate as rigid tests. The Patent Office has invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders on the Draft Guidelines. Submissions may be sent to cgoffice[dot]in[at]gov[dot]in and llc[dash]ipo[at]gov[dot] by 19th September. 1 Read More

CGPDTM calls for comments on draft Guidelines for Examination of Biotechnology Patent Applications

The Indian Patent Office has released the Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Biotechnology 2026, providing detailed guidance for the examination of biotechnology and allied patent applications. The Guidelines cover patentability requirements such as novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, as well as exclusions under Section 3 of the Patents Act. They also address claim drafting, prior-art searches, sufficiency of disclosure, clarity and support, unity of invention, and the deposition of biological material. The Guidelines specifically require examiners conducting sequence searches to use tools such as BLAST, UniProt and FASTA and disclose the search string or query used. The Guidelines incorporate principles from several judicial decisions. Dimminaco AG v. Controller of Patents and Designs is discussed in relation to the patentability of processes involving living microorganisms. On Section 3(d), the Guidelines refer to Novartis AG v. Union of India and Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Novartis AG among many others. They also incorporate recent decisions concerning agricultural methods and diagnostic processes, including Mitsui Chemicals v. Controller of Patents and The Chinese University of Hong Kong Knowledge Transfer Office & Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs & Ors. The Patent Office has invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders on the Draft Guidelines. Submissions may be sent to cgoffice[dot]in[at]gov[dot]in and llc[dash]ipo[at]gov[dot] by 19th September.2 Read More

Copyright Office Rejects DABUS As Author Of AI-Generated Artwork

The Indian Copyright Office rejected an application filed by Dr. Stephen L. Thaler seeking copyright registration for the artwork “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, with the AI system DABUS named as its author. The application, filed in 2022, identified DABUS, an artificial intelligence system comprising interconnected neural networks, as the author and Thaler as the applicant and publisher. In 2023, the Copyright Office had asked Thaler to amend the authorship details to name himself as the author, but he declined. The Registrar of Copyrights held that under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957, an author must be a person recognised in law, and DABUS was neither a natural nor a juristic person. The Registrar also held that the provision focuses on the person who caused the work to be created, rather than the entity that immediately generated the output. Based on Thaler’s own disclosures, the Registrar found that he had conceived, configured and trained DABUS and provided the inputs that led to the creation of the artwork. The application was therefore rejected, while Thaler was permitted to file a fresh application naming himself as the author. 3 Read More

‘Asmani’ Plagarism: Mumbai Court Restrains Publication of Defamatory Content Against Sayani Gupta

The Mumbai City Civil Court granted interim relief to actor and filmmaker Sayani Gupta in her ₹9 crore defamation suit against filmmaker Vinita Negi over allegations concerning Gupta’s short film Aasmani. Negi had alleged that Aasmani substantially borrowed from her unfinished documentary Prabha, and accused Gupta of copyright infringement and breach of trust. Gupta denied the allegations and claimed that they were false and defamatory. Gupta alleged that Negi continued to circulate these allegations while proceedings before the Screenwriters Association were pending. She claimed that the allegations were subsequently amplified through media reports and social media, causing professional harm, including the withdrawal of Aasmani from the Indian Film Festival of New Zealand. The Court restrained Negi and the other defendants from publishing, circulating or continuing to publish allegedly defamatory material against Gupta. It also directed platforms including Meta, Reddit and Deccan Chronicle to remove such content. However, the Court rejected a blanket restriction and clarified that the defendants remained free to pursue legal remedies and publish accurate and verified information based on official records, judicial proceedings or findings of a competent authority. 4 Read More

Delhi High Court Revives Patent Application for Improved Process to Manufacture Sugammadex

The Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office’s refusal of a patent application filed by Fresenius Kabi Ipsum SRL for an improved process to manufacture sugammadex, a drug used to reverse the effects of certain muscle relaxants administered during surgery. The applicant claimed that the process improved the reproducibility, yield and purity of the reaction and reduced impurities and overall reaction time compared with earlier methods. Two pre-grant oppositions were filed against the application, raising objections including lack of novelty and inventive step. The Patent Office refused the application in November 2024, finding that the claimed process lacked novelty and inventive step in view of four prior-art documents and was not patentable because it did not involve a new reactant or result in a new product. The High Court, however, held that the applicant had not been provided the separate opportunity of hearing required under Section 14 of the Patents Act before refusal. It held that hearings conducted during the pre-grant opposition proceedings could not substitute this statutory hearing and that the denial was a violation of a substantive right. The Court also noted deficiencies in the refusal order, including its failure to identify the closest prior art or adequately explain why the prior-art documents could be combined to establish obviousness. It set aside the refusal and remanded the application for fresh consideration within six months, after hearing both parties.5 Read More

Bombay High Court Asks Metro Brands to Pursue Passing Off Claim Against MetBrands in Kerala

The Bombay High Court declined to adjudicate Metro Brands Limited’s passing off claim against Kerala-based MetBrands Private Limited, holding that the dispute should be pursued before the appropriate court in Kerala. Metro Brands had alleged that MetBrands was using the marks “METBRANDS” and “METBRANDS SHOES & BAGS”, which were deceptively similar to its registered “METRO” and “METRO BRANDS” marks. Metro Brands had sought to combine its passing off claim with its trademark infringement proceedings before the Bombay High Court. The court observed that the cause of action for the passing off claim had arisen in Kerala, where both companies had business operations. The Court noted that Metro Brands operated 18 stores in Kerala, while MetBrands was based in the State. It also considered the location of the parties, their business activities and the availability of evidence while determining the appropriate forum for the dispute. The Court further held that the registered office of Metro Brands in Mumbai, by itself, did not establish that the passing off dispute should be adjudicated in Mumbai. Considering the territorial connection of the dispute with Kerala and the convenience of the parties, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the passing off claim. Metro Brands was accordingly left at liberty to pursue the claim before the competent court in Kerala. 6 Read More

Supreme Court Stays Geobrugg’s Patent Suit Against Techfab

The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a patent infringement suit filed by Swiss company Geobrugg AG against Techfab (India) Industries Ltd. concerning high-tensile wire mesh products sold under the “TECCO” brand. A Division Bench issued notice to Geobrugg and directed the parties to complete their pleadings before the matter is next heard on November 2, 2026. Techfab challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, arguing that it was based in Mumbai and manufactured the products in Uttarakhand, with no business, agent or distributor in Himachal Pradesh. It contended that the suit was principally based on a single invoice for goods ultimately delivered to Kullu. Techfab submitted that the goods were handed over to a transporter in Uttarakhand and that the buyer was a Maharashtra-based company. Geobrugg had argued before the High Court that the sale was completed in Himachal Pradesh because the buyer had an opportunity to inspect the goods there. The High Court had consequently held that part of the cause of action arose in Himachal Pradesh and rejected Techfab’s objection to territorial jurisdiction. It also held that the purchaser was not a necessary party and that pre-institution mediation was not mandatory as Geobrugg had sought urgent interim relief. 7

Delhi High Court Appoints Amicus Curiae in Janhvi Kapoor Personality Rights Suit

The Delhi High Court appointed advocate Gautam Bhatia as amicus curiae in a personality rights suit filed by actor Janhvi Kapoor. Justice Bhambhani passed the order while considering Kapoor’s plea seeking protection against the unauthorised use of her name, image and other aspects of her persona. The appointment was made to assist the Court in considering the legal issues arising in the matter. The Court has previously dealt with Kapoor’s plea concerning online content and directed the removal of certain obscene material while declining to impose a blanket restriction on fan pages. The present proceedings concern the broader protection sought by Kapoor for her personality rights. The Court will next hear the matter on September 22, 2026, when it will consider Kapoor’s application for interim relief. The appointment of an amicus curiae will allow the Court to receive independent assistance on the legal questions involved before deciding the interim relief application. 8 Read More

Bombay High Court Orders Takedown of AI Deepfakes Misusing Shruti Haasan’s Personality Rights

The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to actor Shruti Haasan against the unauthorised use of her name, voice, image, likeness and other distinctive attributes through artificial intelligence and other technologies. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar found that Haasan had made out a “very strong prima facie case” based on online content including AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated photographs, voice simulations, chatbot personas, GIFs, merchandise and other digital material allegedly created and circulated without her consent. The Court noted that the material included alleged deepfake videos and images, including sexually explicit content, as well as websites and online stores that purportedly offered bookings or merchandise using Haasan’s identity. It also considered allegations concerning AI chatbot profiles on platforms such as FlowGPT and Cloud Whale Interactive Technology that purported to represent or impersonate Haasan.

The Court restrained the defendants from using or exploiting Haasan’s name, voice, image, likeness, distinctive performance, appearance, mannerisms, signature and other attributes identifiable with her without consent. It directed online intermediaries, including Google, Meta, X and Pinterest, to remove or disable access to the identified content and to act on similar infringing material upon receiving written notice. Google was separately directed to disclose subscriber information relating to identified YouTube channels. The Court held that monetary compensation would not adequately address the harm caused by unrestricted online replication of deepfake content. 9 Read More

International Update

Federal Circuit Affirms Written Description Support for Pharmaceutical Genus Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld patent claims relating to cabozantinib (L)-malate, a drug used to treat cancer. The patents are owned by Exelixis, Inc. and cover particular forms of the drug, pharmaceutical compositions containing it, and methods of using it to treat cancer. MSN Laboratories and MSN Pharmaceuticals sought approval to sell a generic version of cabozantinib (L)-malate tablets. Exelixis sued the companies for patent infringement. MSN accepted that its proposed product would infringe three of the patents but argued that the patents were invalid because their specifications did not adequately describe the inventions claimed. The Delaware District Court rejected MSN’s argument after a trial. It held that the patent specifications contained sufficient information about the claimed drug, including its chemical name, formula and crystalline structure. MSN appealed the decision to the CAFC. The Federal Circuit upheld the District Court’s findings, holding that the information disclosed in the patents was sufficient to describe the claimed inventions. The CAFC also considered a fourth patent. Exelixis withdrew its appeal concerning infringement of that patent, making MSN’s related appeal unnecessary. The Court therefore dismissed that part of the appeal and vacated the District Court’s judgment on that issue. 10 Read More

Australian Patent Office Finds Consignment Did Not Destroy Novelty

The Australian Patent Office, in voestalpine Rail Technology GmbH v. Nippon Steel Corporation [2026] APO 17, considered whether a rail supplied on consignment could be treated as prior art and therefore prevent a patent from being granted. The patent application concerned a railway rail made from steel with particular chemical and physical properties. The opponent relied on a rail that had been manufactured in September 2018 and delivered to voestalpine Railway Systems Australia Ltd. before the patent application’s priority date. The opponent argued that this earlier rail made the invention no longer new. The Delegate found that the rail had been provided on a consignment basis, meaning that ownership remained with the supplier until the rail was sold. The company receiving the rail therefore did not have unrestricted rights to use or examine it. The Delegate also found that examining the rail in detail would have damaged it and made it unsuitable for sale. The rail was eventually sold to an outside party, but this sale took place after the patent application’s priority date. The Delegate therefore held that the rail had not been made available to the public before the relevant date. As a result, the earlier rail did not destroy the novelty of the claimed invention, and the objection based on prior use was not established. 11

Seattle Times and Newsday Sue OpenAI and Microsoft Over Copyright Infringement

The Seattle Times and Newsday have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The newspapers allege that the companies copied their journalism without permission and used the material to train and operate AI products, including ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot and Bing’s AI features. According to the lawsuit, OpenAI and Microsoft scraped the newspapers’ websites, including articles available only behind paywalls, and incorporated the material into datasets used for their AI systems. The newspapers allege that these systems can reproduce portions of their articles, closely paraphrase their reporting and provide answers based on their content, potentially reducing the need for users to visit their websites or purchase subscriptions. The newspapers are seeking an order requiring OpenAI and Microsoft to destroy copies of their works, as well as training datasets and AI models that contain or incorporate the disputed material. OpenAI stated that its models are trained on publicly available data and that their use is protected by fair use. Microsoft said it was surprised by the lawsuit but was willing to discuss possible solutions. The case is among several copyright disputes concerning the use of protected content to train AI systems. 12 Read More

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Injunction Against Use of ‘Wolf Warrior’ Mark

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court order finding that Kaabo’s use of the “Wolf Warrior” trademark for electric scooters infringed Hammer Brand, LLC’s registered “Wolf” trademark. Hammer has sold gas-powered scooters under the “Wolf” mark since 2013 and registered the mark in 2016. Kaabo began selling electric scooters under the “Wolf Warrior” and “Wolf King” marks in the United States in 2022. Its products were distributed by Voro, Inc. and Fluidfreeride. Hammer subsequently received several inquiries from customers who mistakenly believed it sold electric “Wolf” scooters. The district court applied the eight factors used to assess likelihood of confusion. Six factors, including similarity of the marks and products, overlapping customers and trade channels, advertising, actual confusion and customer sophistication, favoured Hammer. Two factors, concerning the strength of Hammer’s mark and Kaabo’s intent, favoured Kaabo. The district court nevertheless found a likelihood of confusion and granted a permanent injunction. It also cancelled Kaabo’s “Wolf Warrior” registration. The Eleventh Circuit upheld both orders, finding no error in the district court’s determination that Kaabo’s use of “Wolf Warrior” was likely to cause consumer confusion. 13 Read More

  1. IP India, Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Pharmaceuticals 2026, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, Ministry of Commerce & Industry (September 4, 2026) ↩︎
  2. IP India, Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Biotechnology 2026, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, Ministry of Commerce & Industry (September 2026). ↩︎
  3. Riya Rathore, Copyright Office Rejects Bid To Register AI System DABUS As Author Of Artwork, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 24, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/copyright-office-rejects-bid-to-register-ai-system-dabus-as-author-of-artwork-548065 ↩︎
  4. Arna Chatterjee, ‘Aasmani’ Plagiarism Row: Mumbai Court Restrains Publication of Defamatory Content Against Sayani Gupta, Bar & Bench (Sep. 4, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/aasmani-plagiarism-row-mumbai-court-restrains-publication-of-defamatory-content-against-sayani-gupta ↩︎
  5. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Revives Patent Bid For Improved Process To Make Drug Used To Reverse Muscle Relaxation, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 5, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/delhi-high-court-revives-patent-bid-for-improved-process-to-make-drug-used-to-reverse-muscle-relaxation-548720 ↩︎
  6. Praisy Thomas, Bombay HC asks Metro Brands to pursue its passing off claim against MetBrands before Kerala court, Bar & Bench (Sep. 3, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-hc-asks-metro-brands-to-pursue-its-passing-off-claim-against-metbrands-before-kerala-court ↩︎
  7. Kirit Singhania, Supreme Court Stays Swiss Company’s Patent Suit Against Techfab Before Himachal Pradesh High Court, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 1, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/top-stories/supreme-court-stays-swiss-companys-patent-suit-against-indian-wire-mesh-manufacturer-over-tecco-wire-mesh-548071 ↩︎
  8. Bhavini Srivastava, Delhi HC appoints advocate Gautam Bhatia as amicus curiae in Janhvi Kapoor personality rights suit, Bar & Bench (Sep. 3, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-hc-appoints-advocate-gautam-bhatia-as-amicus-curiae-in-janhvi-kapoor-personality-rights-suit ↩︎
  9. Riya Rathore, Bombay High Court Orders Takedown of AI Deepfakes Misusing Actor Shruti Haasan’s Personality Rights, LiveLaw Biz (Sep. 4, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/personality-rights/bombay-high-court-orders-takedown-of-ai-deepfakes-misusing-actor-shruti-haasans-personality-rights-548593 ↩︎
  10. Rose Esfandiari, Cancer Drug Patent Claims Upheld by CAFC, IPWatchdog (Sep. 1, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/01/cancer-drug-patent-claims-upheld-by-cafc/ ↩︎
  11. Dr Claire Gregg, Is consignment a novelty destroying prior use in Australia?, The IPKat (Sep. 1, 2026), https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/09/is-consignment-novelty-destroying-prior.html ↩︎
  12. Rishabh Jaiswal & Natalia Bueno Rebolledo, Seattle Times, Newsday sue OpenAI, Microsoft, alleging copyright infringement, Reuters (Sep. 5, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/seattle-times-newsday-sue-openai-microsoft-alleging-copyright-infringement-2026-09-05/ ↩︎
  13. Hammer Brand, LLC v. Voro, Inc., et al., No. 24-14209 (11th Cir. Sept. 1, 2026). Eleventh Circuit Opinion (PDF) ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles