INDIA: An Introduction to Intellectual Property

In the past 12 to 18 months, AI and data privacy have significantly influenced IP law in India, with new policies, rising acceptance of software patents, and evolving judicial interpretations. These developments are reflective of India’s ambition to become a global tech hub while adapting its legal framework to protect various stakeholders ‒ ranging from innovators to consumers. Although AI aids in drafting judicial decisions, Indian courts remain cautious about its evidentiary use. India’s IP laws have been progressively reshaped to address emerging technologies and ensure balanced protection of IP.

Developments in AI and Data Privacy Laws in India

India’s legal framework surrounding AI and data privacy has been evolving rapidly, driven by the country’s commitment to technological innovation while addressing societal risks. The Indian government has emphasised the importance of a flexible regulatory model that caters to India’s specific needs rather than just adopting global standards. This has led to the creation of several foundational policy documents, including the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister’s Complex Adaptive System Framework and NASSCOM’s Developer’s Playbook for AI in India. These frameworks highlight ethical AI development and strive to balance innovation with responsibility.

The upcoming Digital India Act is expected to introduce comprehensive regulations and will directly impact AI development, particularly in terms of compliance and data governance. India’s legal approach to AI also includes addressing challenges such as the use of AI in generating deepfakes, which has prompted judicial intervention. Indian courts (eg, in Delhi and Bombay) have taken steps to safeguard individual rights, especially for public figures such as Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff, who sought legal protection against AI misuse. These proactive measures emphasise India’s commitment to responsible AI use.

On the AI front, orders passed in ANI Media Pvt Ltd v OpenAI have sparked debates about the use of copyrighted material for AI training, with implications for fair use and jurisdictional boundaries. Public interest litigation, such as that filed by Kanchan Nagar, explores the societal impact of AI, focusing on artists’ rights and the ethical considerations surrounding AI usage. These cases demonstrate the Indian judiciary’s awareness of the broader implications of AI technologies.

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which came into force in August 2023, marks a major step in India’s journey towards robust data privacy laws. This legislation establishes a consent-driven framework for personal data collection, processing and storage, ensuring that data fiduciaries adhere to stringent regulatory standards. The DPDP Act mandates transparency from data collectors, requiring them to provide clear notices about the purposes of data collection. Specifically, special provisions are in place to protect children’s data, prohibiting practices such as tracking, behavioural monitoring, and targeted advertising directed at minors.

One of the key features of the DPDP Act is that individuals are granted more control over their personal information, such as the ability to withdraw consent and request the deletion of their data. This empowers individuals to protect their privacy and exercise their rights. The DPDP Act also strengthens India’s legal foundation for addressing privacy breaches by imposing penalties on non-compliant companies.

In a landmark case, the Madras High Court recognised the Right to be Forgotten as a fundamental right under the DPDP Act. The court ruled that individuals acquitted in criminal cases could request the removal of personal data related to their acquittal, reinforcing the right to privacy and personal dignity. Another notable case involved HDFC Life Insurance v Meta Platforms and Others, where the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to the insurance company, preventing potential leaks of confidential customer data. This case highlighted the risks of identity theft and the growing need for stringent data protection laws.

Moreover, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a significant penalty on Meta for abusing its dominant market position by mandating data sharing between WhatsApp and other Meta platforms. The ruling underlined India’s growing regulatory scrutiny concerning tech giants and their handling of personal data. These developments position India as a key player in global data privacy regulation, reinforcing the country’s commitment to safeguarding user data and promoting fair competition.

Developments in Patent Law in India

India’s patent law framework has undergone significant transformations in recent months. From standard essential patents (SEPs) to pharmaceutical patent litigation, software patents, and agro-chemical patents, these changes reflect India’s evolving approach to IP in response to technological advancements and new legal challenges.

Standard essential patents

One of the notable developments in Indian patent law was the global settlement between InterDigital and Oppo, which ended an intense legal battle before the Delhi High Court over SEPs related to mobile technology. During the proceedings, the court passed several orders, including a decision to decline restricting the disclosure of case summaries to in-house employees. This case has broader implications for transparency in sensitive patent disputes, highlighting India’s evolving stance on handling SEPs.

Pharmaceutical patent litigation

In a significant case involved Novartis v Natco, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s decision reversing an interim injunction in favour of Novartis concerning a species patent for Eltrombopag Olamine. The Supreme Court observed that, since the expiry of the patent, the interim injunction had become irrelevant and the division bench should not have delved into the merits. This decision clarified the court’s approach to cases involving expired patents.

In Bristol Myers Squibb Company v Deputy Controller of Patents and Another, the Madras High Court set aside a refusal order by thepPatent controller that denied grant of patent for a new formulation under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The court ruled that bioavailability is relevant for therapeutic efficacy but may not be the sole criterion for patentability. This case underlined the need for a more nuanced understanding of pharmaceutical patents in India, particularly regarding incremental innovations.

The Delhi High Court also issued interim relief in Kudos Pharmaceuticals v BDR Pharmaceuticals, ordering BDR Pharmaceuticals to earmark 20% of net sales from the sale of the infringing drug. This decision showcased the court’s proactive stance in ensuring patentees’ rights are protected during the pendency of a case and expedited litigation in patent infringement matters.

Software patents

The evolving issue of software patents has also been a significant focus in India. In Blackberry Limited v Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court allowed Blackberry’s appeal against the refusal order for a patent application titled “Auto-Selection of Media Files”. The court ruled that the technical effect of the invention qualified it for patentability under Indian law, emphasising that software-related inventions demonstrating a technical effect are patentable. However, in a separate case, the court reaffirmed the bar on patenting algorithms. It ruled that pure algorithms, without substantial changes in hardware, do not qualify for patent protection under the Patents Act ‒ illustrating the need for software inventions to meet specific technical criteria.

Agro-chemical patents

In Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v Assistant Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court ruled that an invention for the treatment of plants did not fall under the purview of Section 3(h) of the Patent Acts, which excludes methods of agriculture or horticulture from patentability. The court emphasised the technological innovation involved in the plant treatment method, making it eligible for patent protection. This case underscored the importance of clear guidelines regarding agro-chemical patents in India, especially as agricultural technologies continue to evolve.

Divisional patents

The concept of divisional patents was clarified in Syngenta v Controller of Patents, where the Delhi High Court ruled that divisional applications could be filed even when multiple inventions are disclosed within a single patent application. This ruling affirmed the permissibility of divisional applications in India, as long as they align with the entire patent specification rather than specific claims.

Claim construction and equivalence doctrine

Indian patent law also delves into claim construction and the equivalence doctrine. In SNPC Machines Private Limited v Vishal Choudhary, the court applied the function-way-result (FWR) test to determine equivalence in patent claims. This test ensures that minor differences in a product do not preclude a finding of equivalence if the product performs substantially the same function in a similar manner.

Trademark and Copyright Developments in India

India’s trade mark and copyright landscape has witnessed important rulings in 2024 that have had a lasting impact on the enforcement and protection of IP rights.

Digital copyright enforcement

In Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v ISPs, the Delhi High Court issued a dynamic John Doe injunction, allowing Zee to combat online piracy more efficiently. This injunction allows the company to notify regulators and internet service providers of infringing websites without requiring repeated court approvals, setting a precedent for future digital copyright enforcement.

Protection of iconic trade marks

In Vishesh Films v Super Cassettes, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of protecting the iconic trade mark “Aashiqui”, preventing the use of similar titles that could confuse the public. The court reaffirmed that minor variations in famous trade marks could dilute their brand identity, emphasising robust protection for well-known works.

Post-trial trade mark disputes

In Toshiba v Toshiba Appliances, the Delhi High Court upheld Toshiba’s right to its iconic name, granting a permanent injunction against a defendant using a similar trade mark. Similarly, in Lacoste v Crocodile, the court ruled that Crocodile’s logo closely resembled Lacoste’s iconic emblem, issuing a permanent injunction and ordering an accounting of profits made from the infringing logo since 1998.

Conclusion

India’s evolving IP law landscape reflects a proactive balance between innovation and rights protection. Judicial rulings and legislative reforms are addressing the challenges posed by emerging technologies, ensuring a robust legal framework that adapts to changing needs. As India continues to strengthen its IP infrastructure, it is positioning itself as a key player in the global technological and legal arena. These developments demonstrate India’s ability to protect stakeholders’ interests while fostering an environment conducive to technological innovation and creativity.