India: Patent

In a recent decision in Manash Kamal Bezboruah vs. Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited [2026 INSC 701], the Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court"), reiterated that the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though not ousted by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), must be exercised with extreme circumspection against orders passed by an arbitral tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court held that where an arbitral tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, interlocutory interference under Article 227 is warranted only in the exceptional situation of a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, and the ordinary remedy lies under Section 34 after the final award.

On 15 July 2026, the India–United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) moves from negotiated text to commercial reality, opening a new phase in one of the most significant economic partnerships between two major economies. Entering into force alongside the Double Contribution Convention (DCC), the agreement converts the ambition of the 2021 Enhanced Trade Partnership and the India–UK Roadmap 2030 into what the Government of India describes as a “next generation economic corridor”

The patent enforcement ecosystem in India has been undergoing a massive paradigm shift. The previous notion of India as a jurisdiction where patent enforcement awards were merely considered as symbolic, Indian courts are now delivering extensive damages which are at par with United States and Europe enforcement standards.

The Indian Patent Office has introduced comprehensive guidelines governing the use of artificial intelligence in patent examination procedures, establishing a framework that balances technological efficiency with human oversight. These guidelines define permissible and prohibited uses of AI tools while addressing critical concerns around confidentiality, accuracy, and accountability in the patent examination process.

An overview Patent Filing for Consumer Products: From Prototype to Shelf Protection of patent filing for consumer products, explaining patentability, filing timelines, and the role of various Intellectual property protections.

Intellectual property portfolios can be destroyed not by litigation or competition, but by a single missed renewal deadline. A patent that survived years of prosecution or a trademark built over decades can vanish because an annuity payment went unpaid on a date nobody was watching. This examination reveals how these administrative failures occur under Indian statute, why restoration is far weaker than most proprietors assume, and what a defensible renewal framework looks like in practice.

In a landmark 150-page judgment delivered on 18 May 2026, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court set aside the 2018 royalty decree granted in favour of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., significantly restating the evidentiary and legal standards governing Standard Essential Patent (“SEP”) litigation in India.

The recent notified version of the Scheme for Facilitating Startups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) came to an end on 31 March 2026. As of May 2026, there has been no official announcement indicating an extension, renewal, or replacement of the scheme.

India has remained on the US Trade Representative's Priority Watch List for over 15 years due to ongoing disputes over intellectual property protection, particularly concerning pharmaceutical patents, compulsory licensing, and data exclusivity. With the recent India-EU Free Trade Agreement signed in January 2026, questions arise about whether this landmark deal will alter the dynamics of US-India trade negotiations and India's controversial IP stance.