India: Patent

In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, CS(COMM) 1028/2024, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment on the intersection of copyright law and Generative Artificial Intelligence. Deciding an application for interim injunction, the Court examined questions concerning the use of copyrighted works for training Large Language Models (LLMs), the scope of copyright infringement arising from AI-generated outputs, the applicability of the fair dealing exception under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts over AI developers operating through servers located overseas.

Artificial intelligence is changing not only how products are developed, but also how inventions are conceived, tested and refined. AI and machine learning systems are increasingly being used to identify new materials, optimise industrial processes, improve medical technologies, detect anomalies, develop software architectures and generate technical solutions that may ultimately form part of a patentable invention.

India's healthcare, pharmaceutical, and medical devices sectors have witnessed significant regulatory, policy, and judicial developments aimed at strengthening oversight, enhancing patient safety, and promoting export competitiveness. From revised pharmacovigilance requirements to comprehensive pharmacy education reforms and landmark judicial rulings on drug pricing and patent law, these changes are reshaping the regulatory landscape for healthcare stakeholders.

The June 2026 edition of Dentons Link Legal IP & Technology Newsletter examines the global intellectual property ecosystem's strong momentum, featuring record-high filings, AI-driven innovation surges, and pivotal rulings that reflect technological advancement and evolving regulatory priorities. From bizarre patent cases like motorized pasta forks to multimillion-dollar verdicts collapsed by procedural flaws, the newsletter explores landmark decisions in pharmaceutical patents, trademark enforcement, and AI

In Astral Ltd. v. M/s Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr., CS (COMM) 294/2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed an application seeking rejection of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that, at the stage of considering an objection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the averments in the plaint must be accepted as true. It further observed that an interactive listing on a third-party platform such as Justdial, through which consumers can access product catalogues, initiate enquiries, and contact the Defendant, is sufficient to prima facie confer territorial jurisdiction in an internet-based trademark dispute.

While legal merits are important, experienced business leaders know that litigation is only one component of a broader commercial decision.

The Madras High Court has ruled that defendants in patent infringement cases face a significantly higher burden of proof when claiming protection under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (“DPIIT”) has issued gazette notification G.S.R. 108(E) dated February 04, 2026...

In any corporation, nowadays, Intellectual Property (IP) assets such as patents, trademarks, copyrights technical know-how and/or licenses represents a significant portion of a company’s actual value.