This IP newsletter covers categories of updates relating to Legal Updates, Industry Spotlight, Case Studies and Precedents, Practical Insights for IP Professionals, Upcoming Events and Webinars, and Spotlight on Innovation.
Intellectual Property (IP) Rights Updates
1. Falcon Autotech Private Limited v Kengic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd
In the case of Falcon Autotech Private Limited v. Kengic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd., the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, halting Kengic from manufacturing, selling, importing, exporting, or promoting any products that infringed upon Falcon's patent. This case was led by Rahul Bagga, Partner, who successfully obtained the injunctive relief on behalf of Falcon Autotech Private Limited.
2. Amazon Penalized ₹340 Crore for Trademark Infringement
The Delhi High Court penalized Amazon ₹340 crore for trademark infringement involving the "Beverly Hills Polo Club" logo. The court found Amazon's private label, "Symbol," used a deceptively similar logo, leading to consumer confusion. This landmark ruling highlights the significance of intellectual property rights and sets a strong precedent for e-commerce platforms to ensure trademark compliance.
3. Delhi High Court Restores Injunction in Bharat Gate vs India Gate Trademark Dispute
The Delhi High Court restored an injunction against the use of the "Bharat Gate" trademark, ruling it deceptively similar to the "India Gate" trademark. The court found that both marks, used for rice products, were phonetically and conceptually alike, leading to consumer confusion. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting established trademarks and preventing unfair competition in the marketplace.
4. Panasonic, Xiaomi, and SPT Reach Licensing Agreement on Cellular Patents
Panasonic, Xiaomi, and Sun Patent Trust (SPT) have reached a licensing agreement on cellular standard essential patents, resolving global IP disputes. The deal acknowledges Xiaomi's patent value and Panasonic's contributions to standardized technologies. Both companies expressed commitment to future IP collaboration, while SPT celebrated securing its first licensee in China.
5. Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Netflix India's Application To Reject Suit Filed By Dhanush Against Nayanthara's Documentary
The Madras High Court rejected Netflix India's plea to dismiss Wunderbar's copyright suit over unauthorized use of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan behind-the-scenes footage in Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale. The court will address the interim injunction on February 5, 2025.
6. Bangladesh Patent Act, 2023: Transforming the Intellectual Property Landscape
The Government of Bangladesh, through its latest gazette, has officially announced that the Bangladesh Patent Act, 2023, is now in effect. This landmark development introduces updated legal provisions and regulations, significantly enhancing the nation's intellectual property framework to provide stronger patent protection.
7. Hytera Admits It Stole Motorola's Trade Secrets
Hytera Communications Corporation Limited pleaded guilty to stealing Motorola Solutions' trade secrets to develop a competing line of radios. As part of the plea agreement, Hytera must pay a fine up to $60 million and make full restitution to Motorola Solutions. The sentencing hearing is set for November 6, 2025.
8. Ex-Gizmodo Editor Loses IP Suit Over Apple Film 'Tetris' Copyright Infringement Dispute
In this case, the U.S. District Court ruled that Apple did not infringe copyrights in its film "Tetris," as alleged by Dan Ackerman, a former Gizmodo editor. The court found that while the film was based on facts from Ackerman's book, "The Tetris Effect," it did not copy his unique expression of those facts, thus qualifying as fair use under copyright law.
9. Tesla v. InterDigital
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in the UK reviewed Tesla's case against InterDigital, which challenged the validity and essentiality of InterDigital's standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 5G technology. Tesla also contested licensing terms under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) obligations.
10. Sierra Wireless, ULC, et al. v. Sisvel S.p.A
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed Sierra Wireless's challenge to the validity of patents owned by Sisvel S.p.A. The patents pertained to data transmission methods crucial for wireless communication systems. The Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision, invalidating some claims as unpatentable due to obviousness while affirming the validity of others, emphasizing the nuanced complexities involved in patent litigation.
11. James Bond v. Kleindienst – Trademark Cancellation Action
In this case, Dubai based developer Josef Kleindienst has initiated cancellation actions in the UK/EU against Danjaq's "007" trademark, alleging non use across several product classes.
12. ANI v. OpenAI in the Delhi HC
Digital Copyright Dispute Plaintiffs, led by ANI, have filed a suit in the Delhi High Court, alleging that OpenAI has infringed on its copyright by using news content without proper licensing to train its AI models.
13. X, Social Media Biz Settle TM Fight Trademark Dispute
In this case, X Corp. and Multiply, a social media and PR firm, reached a settlement in their trademark dispute over the strikingly similar "X" logos. Both parties agreed to drop all claims and counterclaims, avoiding a December jury trial. The terms of the settlement remain undisclosed.
Case Studies and Precedents
1. Delhi High Court reaffirm a 'method of treatment of plants' would not fall under the purview of 'method of agriculture'
In Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court addressed the rejection of Syngenta's patent for a method to treat Bakanae disease in rice. The court allowed claim amendments and clarified that plant treatment methods are patentable, rejecting their classification as agricultural methods under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.
2. First Fiddle F And B Pvt Ltd vs Big Fish Ventures
First Fiddle F&B filed a case against Big Fish Ventures for breach of contract and franchise agreement related to the brand "King of Drinks." Controversy arose after a viral "Mujera Night" event, damaging the plaintiff's reputation and raising licensing concerns. The court prohibited the plaintiff from using the name "Beverage King," ordered the return of business materials, and imposed damages of 300,000 and a fine of 100 TL.
3. Sandeep Gangatkar v. Sandeep Kewlani, Interim Application (L) No. 2143 of 2025, decided on 23-01-2025.
The Bombay High Court denied a request to block the January 24, 2025 release of Sky Force, citing the applicant's delay in raising objections despite awareness since October 2023. The court noted that an interim stay would cause significant financial losses to the defendants.
4. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V vs Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr
The Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. vs Maj. (Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr. case, which took 13 years to resolve, is a landmark in Indian patent law, particularly concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations. It highlighted the challenges patent holders face in enforcing their rights while dealing with counterclaims of invalidity, emphasizing the need for balance between protecting intellectual property and ensuring fair competition.
Practical Insights for IP Professionals
In patent applications, the terms "adapted to" and "configured to" have distinct meanings that can significantly impact the scope and enforceability of claims
1. "Adapted to": This phrase suggests flexibility, indicating that an invention is capable of performing a certain function, but not necessarily always performing it. It emphasizes potential functionality, making it broader in scope.
Example: "Adapted to communicate wirelessly" means the device has the potential to communicate wirelessly, but may not always do so.
2. "Configured to": This term is more specific and restrictive, implying that the invention is explicitly designed or arranged to perform a particular function. It suggests that the device must be in a certain state for the function to occur.
Example: "Configured to communicate wirelessly" means the device is specifically set up for wireless communication.
Legal Implications: "Adapted to" typically leads to broader claims, while "configured to" narrows the claim to a specific embodiment, offering more clarity but less flexibility.
Conclusion: Choosing between these terms is critical for defining the scope of patent claims. "Adapted to" allows for broader protection, while "configured to" offers more precise but narrower coverage. Careful use of these terms can influence a patent's enforceability and its potential success in litigation.
Upcoming Events and Webinars
- April 7-11 - The 46th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights.
- April 24-25 - Two-Day Conference on "IPR and Society: Bridging Innovation and Public Interest," organized by ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad.
- April 28- May 2 - The 35th Session of the Committee of Experts of the Nice Union.
- May 5-9 - The 34th Session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property.
Spotlight on Innovation
- AlphaFold 3, developed by Google DeepMind, is a groundbreaking advancement in molecular biology, capable of predicting 3D protein structures and their interactions with other molecules such as DNA, RNA, and ligands. This innovation expands upon its predecessors by providing unprecedented accuracy in modeling complex molecular networks, accelerating crucial breakthroughs in drug discovery, genetic research, and disease comprehension. Its open database democratizes access to molecular predictions, but it also raises critical ethical concerns regarding data privacy, intellectual property, and equitable access.
- Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta Expansion: Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) V14 marks a significant step forward in autonomous driving, utilizing auto-regressive transformer models for advanced decision-making and real-time situational analysis. By incorporating features like audio recognition and extended context capabilities, the system enhances safety and navigation, particularly in urban settings, while aligning with the launch of Tesla's ambitious Robotaxi network. However, the expansion of autonomous systems continues to generate debates over regulatory frameworks and liability concerns, with global regions approaching these issues in diverse ways.
- Generative AI in Drug Discovery: generative AI is revolutionizing drug discovery as companies like Insilico Medicine and Exscientia leverage deep learning to design novel drug candidates, drastically reducing development time and costs. Notably, AI-powered platforms have led to clinical trials for conditions like pulmonary fibrosis, offering hope for combating complex and rare diseases, though challenges around data ethics and privacy remain key concerns.
Industry Spotlight
- Quantum chips are driving technological advancements by enabling faster, more powerful computations, opening new possibilities in AI, cryptography, and drug discovery. They offer energy-efficient solutions and miniaturized devices, fueling innovations across industries. Here is an overview of leading industry players, based on the number of patents filed, who are at the forefront of this transformative technology, shaping the future of computing and secure communication.
Contributors to the newsletter:
- Nisha Wadhwa,
- Neha Sharma,
- Vidhi Agrawal
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
