A compact roundup of the week’s posts: a tribute to former Patent Office administrator P. H. Kurian; a Delhi High Court decision stressing that patent objections must tie to claims and evidence; an unusual appointment of an amicus in a Vivek Oberoi personality-rights matter; plus procedural and case developments across copyright, trademark, and patent law.
Delhi High Court in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller rejected objections that were not linked to claims or supporting evidence, especially on inventive step and Sections 3(d) and 3(i).
The DHC appointed an amicus curiae to represent Vivek Oberoi’s perspective after his counsel withdrew, raising procedural questions about amicus roles in civil personality-rights suits.
Several court orders this week clarified procedural fronts: disclosure issues in post-grant oppositions, consequences of breaching interim injunctions, and case-specific disposals and amendments.
Remembering P. H. Kurian (1959–2026)
DHC: tie objections to claims and evidence — Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller
Harsh Kashyap reviews a Delhi High Court decision that reiterates a basic disciplinary point for patent practice: objections must be connected to the claimed subject-matter and supported by evidence. The Court applied this principle to objections on inventive step and statutory exclusions under Section 3(d) and Section 3(i). The post also flags unresolved questions left by the judgment.
Amicus appointed after counsel withdrawal in Vivek Oberoi suit
Vishwas Tripathi examines an unusual procedural step in a civil suit dealing with personality rights. After Vivek Oberoi's counsel withdrew, the Delhi High Court appointed an amicus curiae to represent his perspective. The post questions whether this appointment fits the established role of amicus curiae or risks becoming a procedural safety net for plaintiffs who cease active participation.
Other notable posts and procedural developments
Adventures of the Controller: Bombay High Court on CGK in post-grant opposition
A Bombay High Court decision in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller deals with a Controller's reliance on common general knowledge (CGK) evidence that was not disclosed to the Opposition Board or the patentee before revocation. Maneesha Gupta explains how the Court added a procedural layer to scrutiny over how obviousness inquiries are handled.
Court examined whether wilful breach of an interim injunction should automatically attract punishment. Harsh Kashyap outlines the Court's distinction between finding disobedience and deciding consequences, noting that Order XXXIX Rule 2A is used primarily to secure compliance rather than to punish past breaches.
The week's posts concentrate on procedural rigor: connecting objections to claims and evidence in patent proceedings, the limits of controllers' reliance on undisclosed CGK material, and careful separation between establishing breach and imposing consequences. The amicus appointment in a personality-rights suit highlights evolving procedural questions in celebrity and publicity litigation. Together, these items guide practitioners to pay closer attention to evidentiary foundations and procedural disclosure.
Kicking off September with an exciting week featuring posts on the latest guidelines by the Patent Office on the use of AI in patent examination, copyright strikes, the Calcutta High Court order in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo, the Copyright Office’s decision in the Thaler-Dabus case, and the Delhi High Court order in Hindusta
After another busy week and a long weekend, here we are with the SpicyIP Weekly Review with discussions on the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach to personality rights, a closer look at the Court’s decision in the Sugammadex patent dispute. We also had posts on copyright strikes and intermediary due diligence, the on
In this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review, we have comments submitted by a few of our team members on the IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Pharmaceuticals, 2026, along with case summaries of the orders and judgments we were able to find. If we’ve missed anything, drop a c
Posts on the Delhi High Court’s Zara v Zora ruling, the Madras High Court’s ruling in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah, and a post remembering late Dr. Pinaki Ghosh. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Prof. (D
The Internet is, at its core, a system of knowledge consisting of files stored on computers that are linked and made accessible to the public by URLs. The Fifth Circuit recently addressed the balance of making knowledge accessible and protecting the rights of copyright owners. In Emmerich Newspapers, Inc. v. Particle M
The Madras High Court’s decision in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah may appear to be about the ownership of BTS photographs from the making of the hit film ‘Aval Appadithan‘. But the reasoning gets considerably less straightforward when the Court’s treatment of Section 17(b), consideration, and acquiescence is examined closely.
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.