ARTICLE
4 July 2025

Intellectual Property Newsletter | May 2025

DL
Dentons Link Legal

Contributor

Established in 1999, Dentons Link Legal is a full service corporate and commercial law firm with over 50 partners and 250 lawyers across multiple practice areas. With offices across all major Indian cities and access to more than 160 offices in more than 80 countries of Dentons’ combination firms across the world, Dentons Link Legal is equipped to assist you in achieving your business objectives with the help of a team of experienced, well trained and qualified lawyers.
HTF Market Intelligence Consulting Pvt. Ltd. released a detailed study on the Global Chemical Licensing Market, projecting its valuation to rise from USD 11 billion in 2025 to USD 20 billion by 2032...
India Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights Updates

1. Chemical licensing market may set new growth story | BASF, Dow, DuPont

HTF Market Intelligence Consulting Pvt. Ltd. released a detailed study on the Global Chemical Licensing Market, projecting its valuation to rise from USD 11 billion in 2025 to USD 20 billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 7.4 percent. The report highlights increasing demand for regulated and eco-friendly chemicals, expansion of the global chemical trade, and heightened focus on safety and compliance as key growth drivers. Major players include BASF, Dow, DuPont, ExxonMobil, and Shell, among others. The market is segmented by licensing types such as patent licensing, product registration, and technology transfer and by application across sectors like manufacturing, research and development, and international trade.

North America currently leads the market, while Latin America is the fastest growing region. The study also outlines challenges such as compliance costs, regional regulatory complexities, and environmental concerns linked to chemical production. Nevertheless, opportunities abound in chemical recycling, export growth, and the development of international licensing standards. The report integrates Five Forces and PESTLE analyses to assess the market landscape and strategic outlook.

DLL Analysis The growth of the chemical licensing market reflects a shift towards regulatory maturity and responsible chemical management, particularly in the context of global sustainability goals. As nations tighten their environmental and safety regulations, licensing is no longer just a compliance tool but a strategic enabler for innovation and market expansion. For emerging economies like India, this trend presents an opportunity to modernize their industrial base while aligning with global standards, ensuring safer chemical use, and fostering international trade collaborations.

[Source]

2. UPC – Meril and Meril Life Sciences v. Edwards Lifesciences / Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) dismissed Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd's request for a stay of enforcement of a permanent injunction issued by the Munich Local Division on November 15, 2024. The injunction, granted in favor of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, concerned European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to a system comprising a prosthetic valve and a delivery catheter. The underlying dispute centers on Meril's second-generation transcatheter heart valve marketed as Myval Octacor. The patent was previously upheld in amended form by the Paris Central Division in July 2024, with Meril and Meril Italy filing appeals thereafter.

Meril's application for a stay was based on several grounds, including alleged errors in claim construction, lack of clarity in the scope of the injunction, and procedural violations. However, the Court of Appeal found these arguments unpersuasive. It held that Meril did not demonstrate that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without a suspensive effect, nor did it establish that the lower court's decision was manifestly erroneous. The CoA emphasized that a stay of enforcement is an exceptional measure, requiring clear and convincing justification, which Meril failed to provide.

DLL Analysis This decision reinforces the UPC Court of Appeal's cautious approach toward granting suspensive relief, signaling that it will not entertain broad or speculative claims without compelling legal and factual support. The ruling highlights the importance of precision and focus in appellate strategy, especially in complex patent litigation involving cross-border enforcement. For litigants, the case serves as a clear reminder that procedural safeguards alone will not suffice unless combined with a strong and substantiated argument. For the medical device and life sciences sector, the ruling also underscores the growing role of UPC in shaping pan-European enforcement standards.

[Source]

3. Operation sindoor' trademark applications filed in India, US, UK

Several trademark applications have recently been filed for the term "Operation Sindoor", the codename for India's military strikes against Pakistan. In India, at least 14 different individuals and entities have applied to register the mark across sectors such as apparel, media, and services. One notable application came from Jio Studios, a unit of Reliance Industries, which was later withdrawn following public backlash. The company clarified that the application was mistakenly filed by a junior employee without authorisation. In the United States, an application was submitted on 9 May 2025 by Rohith Baharani, a New York resident, on an "intent to use" basis, meaning the mark has not yet been used in commerce but is intended to be. The application, currently awaiting examination by the USPTO, falls under US Classes 100, 101, and 107, covering certification and service marks. In the United Kingdom, a similar application was filed a day earlier, on 8 May 2025, by Vikas Mahajan from Devon, England, under Classes 35, 38, and 41. The move to trademark a military operation name has sparked public outrage, with critics calling it insensitive and exploitative. In India, such codenames are not automatically protected by intellectual property laws, as the Ministry of Defence typically does not commercialise or register them.

DLL Analysis - In our view, the current filings for "Operation Sindoor", while procedurally permissible under trademark law, are legally questionable, ethically problematic, and politically insensitive. The situation calls for governmental intervention, possibly through a notified list of restricted terms or new legislative provisions to prevent misuse. Additionally, the Trademark Office should proactively exercise its discretion to refuse such applications on public policy grounds, especially when the term pertains to matters of national security or honour.

[Source]

4. Rajasthan's traditional sangri receives GI tag

Ker Sangri, a traditional dish from Rajasthan, has been granted a Geographical Indication (GI) tag, officially recognizing it as a unique product of the region. This dish is made from Ker, a tangy wild berry, and Sangri, a nutritious bean that grows on the Khejri tree. Both ingredients thrive in the harsh, arid climate of the Thar Desert and are known for their ability to withstand extreme drought. Ker Sangri is typically prepared using age-old methods with spices and oil, resulting in a flavorful and long-lasting delicacy that reflects the culinary heritage of Rajasthan.

DLL Analysis - The GI tag for Ker Sangri is more than a label. It is a badge of honor for the people of Rajasthan and a reminder that our heritage is our strength. Recognizing and protecting such traditional treasures ensures they continue to thrive and inspire future generations both as food and as living stories of resilience.

[Source]

5. Patent cannot be denied on morality or health grounds without scientific evidence: Calcutta High Court

In ITC Limited v. Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (IPDPTA/13/2024), the Calcutta High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application for a "Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol" under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had refused the patent on the grounds that the invention was contrary to public order and morality and posed serious health risks, assuming it would be used exclusively with tobacco-based substrates. The Court held that this assumption was flawed, as the invention itself was not limited to tobacco usage and its primary use had not been objectively assessed. It emphasized that patentability must be judged based on the invention's technical content and intended utility—not subjective or speculative concerns.

DLL Analysis – The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness. Applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to all documents and reasoning used against them. Overall, this decision is a strong call for transparency, fairness, and restraint in applying morality-based exclusions in Indian patent law. The court further highlighted that a patent application cannot be rejected merely because the invention might be used in a way perceived as harmful, unless there is concrete scientific evidence and legal backing showing that the invention's primary or intended use is indeed contrary to public order or morality.

[Source]

6. Federal Circuit reverses summary judgment in Fintiv v. Apple

In a nonprecedential decision dated May 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment ruling by the Western District of Texas in the long-running infringement case between Fintiv, Inc. and Apple Inc. The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125, which relates to a mobile wallet management system comprising widget-based functionalities enabling contactless card transactions on mobile devices.

Fintiv had sued Apple in 2018, alleging that Apple Pay and Apple Wallet infringed several claims of the US'125 patent, including those involving the provisioning and retrieval of a "widget" and a Wallet Management Applet (WMA). Initially, the district court construed "widget" as "software that is either an application or works with an application, and which may have a user interface." However, just before trial, the court granted Apple's motion for summary judgment on noninfringement, stating that Fintiv failed to clearly identify such a widget in Apple's products. The court dismissed Fintiv's source code and expert evidence as insufficient.

Upon appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the district court had erred by demanding precise source code identification when circumstantial evidence could suffice under infringement law. The appellate court pointed to expert testimony and user interface screenshots showing that Apple Wallet software allows users to view and interact with virtual card data functionality that aligns with the claimed "widget." The Court further noted Apple's own witness testimony supporting that software underlies such user-facing interfaces. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further analysis on whether other claim limitations such as "corresponding to a contactless card applet" were satisfied, which had not yet been considered by the lower court.

DLL Analysis -The Fintiv ruling reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence and expert interpretation remain valid tools in proving software patent infringement—especially in user interface-heavy technologies like mobile wallets. The Court's caution against overreliance on granular source code sets a meaningful precedent in software patent enforcement, particularly when functionality is evident through user behavior and system outputs. For patent owners, the judgment offers reassurance that summary judgment cannot be used to prematurely dismiss infringement claims that are supportable through operational evidence. For digital wallet developers and OEMs, this decision underscores the importance of early claim construction strategy and the evidentiary value of expert-led product analysis.

[Source]

Case Studies

Ms Marion Biotech Private Limited vs State of Up And 5 Others

The case arose from the suspension of the drug manufacturing license of Ms. Marion Biotech following the deaths of children in Uzbekistan allegedly linked to the company's syrup containing high levels of Diethylene Glycol and Ethylene Glycol. The Drugs Licensing Authority of Uttar Pradesh had cancelled the licenses without observing the statutory 28-day objection period. Upon appeal, the appellate authority restored the license, with exceptions for drugs using Propylene Glycol, based on committee recommendations and observed procedural violations. However, the Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) filed a review application leading to the suspension of the appellate order, citing incomplete submissions by the company regarding foreign court judgments and incomplete corrective actions.

The High Court of Allahabad held that the appellate authority had no statutory power to review its own order under Rule 85(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, thereby becoming functus officio once it issued the order dated 11 August 2023. The Court emphasized that the power of review must be explicitly granted by law and cannot be presumed. It found that the review order dated 4 October 2023 was passed without notice to the petitioner and on grounds that had already been examined, such as inspection deficiencies and test reports. The Court concluded that no fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation had been proven to justify reopening the matter.

DLL Analysis -This judgment reinforces the doctrine of finality in quasi-judicial proceedings and the statutory limits of review authority. It highlights the critical distinction between policy-based administrative decisions and statutory appellate powers which are bound by procedural safeguards. For pharmaceutical companies, it underlines the importance of full regulatory compliance and transparent documentation, particularly when facing cross-border allegations. However, it also provides reassurance that licensing authorities cannot arbitrarily override appellate decisions without a clear legal basis or procedural adherence. From a legal strategy perspective, companies must be vigilant in asserting their rights under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, especially when public health concerns risk being politicized or mishandled procedurally.

[Source]

Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. vs. The Controller of Patents

The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Indian Patent Office that had rejected Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.'s national phase patent application titled "Novel Piperidine Compound or Salt thereof". The application had been refused on grounds under Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, stating that the claimed compound lacked inventive step and did not show enhanced efficacy over the prior art D1. The Controller asserted that the compounds in the application were obvious derivatives of known substances disclosed in D1, particularly referencing Examples 15 and 16. Additionally, the application was held to be non-patentable under Section 3(d), as the Controller found no significant enhancement of therapeutic efficacy over the known compounds.

The Court, however, found that the Patent Office failed to follow the established legal standards under Section 3(d). Specifically, it had not clearly identified a specific "known substance" from D1 against which enhanced efficacy was to be demonstrated. The Court emphasized that vague references to a Markush formula or general structural similarity were insufficient to meet the threshold for invoking Section 3(d). As a result, the Court held that the applicant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond with comparative efficacy data and ruled that the rejections under both Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja) were unsustainable without such clarity. The matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh examination and a proper hearing.

DLL Analysis - This judgment reiterates the procedural fairness required in pharmaceutical patent prosecution under Indian law. It makes clear that objections under Section 3(d) must be substantiated with specific identification of a known compound and not merely broad references to Markush structures. For IP professionals, the ruling reinforces that enhanced efficacy cannot be meaningfully addressed unless the prior art is clearly specified. Furthermore, the Court's recognition that the inventive step assessment under Section 2(1)(ja) is closely tied to the efficacy comparison under Section 3(d) is significant. This case sets an important precedent requiring the Patent Office to provide well-reasoned, evidence-based objections to allow applicants a fair opportunity to respond.

[Source]

Delhi High Court grants 'Dynamic+' injunctions to Culver Max Entertainment in two landmark copyright infringement cases

The Delhi High Court has granted Culver Max strong anti-piracy relief through innovative Dynamic Plus injunctions. Justice Amit Bansal ordered the blocking of 114 rogue websites infringing Culver Max's entertainment content and allowed future protection by permitting impleadment of mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric versions under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Separately, on May 30, 2025, Justice Saurabh Banerjee blocked 36 websites threatening Culver Max's exclusive rights for 10 upcoming cricket tournaments and permitted real-time blocking of infringing sites during live broadcasts. The Dynamic Plus injunctions empower Culver Max to act swiftly either through court or directly via ISPs and domain name registrars, ensuring immediate protection of both existing and future content.

DLL Analysis - These Dynamic Plus injunctions represent a landmark, forward‐thinking approach to digital piracy in India. By enabling swift impleadment of mirror sites for entertainment and real‐time ISP blocking for live sports, the Court has effectively bridged legal procedures with operational realities, ensuring prompt and robust protection of Culver Max's content.

[Source]

Court criticizes trademark office's cryptic refusal, orders rehearing

The Bombay High Court set aside cryptic and unreasoned orders in the case dated 25th November 2021 and 18th May 2022 passed by the Trademark Office, which refused the registration of the Petitioner's mark "PHYTOCUTICLE" under Section 9(1)(a). The Court noted that the orders lacked proper reasoning and violated Rule 111 of the Trademark Rules by not communicating the review decision. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing by a different officer, with directions to pass a reasoned order within 12 weeks.

DLL Analysis - This important order highlights the need for fairness in trademark decisions. The Court made it clear that authorities must give proper reasons for rejecting a mark and must follow the rules for informing applicants. It protects businesses from unfair or unclear refusals and ensures they get a fair chance to present their case. For clients with trademarks in multiple countries, this sets a helpful example of the legal system supporting their right to be heard.

[Source]

Ingenico Inc. vs. IOENGINE LLC

In a significant ruling concerning inter partes review (IPR) estoppel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE LLC, clarified the legal boundaries of estoppel in post-IPR litigation. The case involved a jury verdict in favor of Ingenico, which IOENGINE challenged by asserting invalidity arguments that were different from those raised in the earlier IPR proceeding. IOENGINE contended that since its new invalidity theories relied on different prior art or evidence not raised during the IPR, estoppel should not apply.

The Federal Circuit rejected this line of reasoning and held that IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) bars not only the same prior art references used in the IPR but also any invalidity theories that reasonably could have been raised during that review. The Court affirmed the jury verdict in favor of Ingenico and emphasized that estoppel is not limited to identical references but includes any grounds that were available to the petitioner during the IPR process. This interpretation ensures that parties cannot circumvent IPR estoppel by merely repackaging known arguments under different evidentiary frameworks.

DLL Analysis -This decision fortifies the post-IPR position of patent holders by closing loopholes that infringers might use to revisit invalidity in district court. The Federal Circuit's expansive interpretation of estoppel prevents defendants from relitigating issues that were or could have been addressed during IPR, even if framed with new evidence or prior art. For patent litigators and in-house IP counsel, this ruling serves as a critical guideline when planning litigation strategy and IPR timing. It also reinforces the finality and efficiency objectives behind the America Invents Act's IPR framework, compelling accused infringers to bring all possible invalidity challenges during the IPR phase rather than saving them for district court.

[Source]

Practical insights for IP professionals

Drafting Patents to Withstand Biosimilar Challenges: As the pace of biosimilar development continues to rise, originator companies must take a comprehensive approach to patent drafting that extends well beyond protection of the biological molecule itself. Strong patent portfolios are built by including claims that cover manufacturing processes, formulation details, delivery mechanisms, and analytical or assay methods. These additional layers of protection can serve as valuable tools in litigation or opposition proceedings, providing multiple grounds to assert rights even after the composition of matter is no longer under patent.

Strategic Claim Scope: IP professionals should collaborate closely with research and development teams to identify technical innovations that may otherwise be overlooked. This includes process steps, unique excipients, container systems, or even diagnostic techniques tied to therapeutic use. For example, a patent that covers a proprietary purification method for a monoclonal antibody can serve as a critical barrier to biosimilar market entry, regardless of whether the core molecule has gone off patent. By capturing these nuanced yet impactful innovations, practitioners can create resilient patent strategies that extend market exclusivity and strengthen litigation positions.

Upcoming events and webinars

  • 28 June 2025 to 29 June 2025- East India – US Symposium on IPR @ Kolkata
  • 8 July 2025 to 17 July 2025- The Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO

Spotlight on innovation

Advanced process chemistry is becoming a key area of innovation in the manufacturing of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), especially for complex and high-value molecules. This discipline focuses on the development of efficient, scalable, and sustainable synthetic routes that can deliver APIs with high purity, yield, and reproducibility. As drug molecules become increasingly intricate, such as peptides, oligonucleotides, and highly functionalized small molecules, the need for sophisticated process chemistry is intensifying. Companies are moving beyond conventional synthetic methods and adopting cutting edge techniques such as flow chemistry, biocatalysis, asymmetric synthesis, and continuous manufacturing. These approaches not only optimize cost and time but also reduce environmental impact, aligning with global green chemistry goals.

A significant trend in this domain is the preference for protecting these innovations as trade secrets rather than through patents. Unlike patents, which require public disclosure and are time limited, trade secrets provide potentially indefinite protection as long as confidentiality is maintained. Proprietary process techniques, especially involving critical intermediates, reaction conditions, or purification protocols, are often kept confidential within companies to safeguard their competitive edge. By embedding unique and non-obvious process steps into their manufacturing operations, companies create substantial barriers to entry, making it difficult for competitors to replicate the product even if the API's structure is known. This approach not only secures intellectual property discreetly but also enhances operational resilience and product differentiation in a competitive pharmaceutical market.

Industry spotlight

The biopharmaceutical and chemical industries are increasingly adopting advanced intellectual property strategies to secure high-value innovations in a dynamic and highly regulated environment. Within these sectors, biologics and specialty chemicals are at the forefront of a shift toward integrated protection frameworks. These frameworks blend patent rights with trade secret management and regulatory exclusivities to build robust and layered protection. Companies are no longer relying on a single form of intellectual property but are instead developing holistic strategies that allow flexibility and long-term control over proprietary technologies. This is particularly relevant as regulatory pathways for biosimilars, and generics become more streamlined, placing greater pressure on originators to defend their market share.

Process innovation is emerging as a key point of differentiation. While product claims are important, it is often the proprietary processes and formulations that enable efficient and scalable production, especially for complex biologics or chemically sensitive compounds. With the growing use of artificial intelligence tools in both drug development and IP analytics, companies are now able to identify patentable opportunities more precisely and optimize claim coverage across jurisdictions. Strategic patent drafting, combined with the safeguarding of confidential technical know-how, is shaping the next generation of IP protection. This evolving model offers forward-looking companies a significant advantage as they navigate increasing competition and global regulatory shifts.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More