Inttl Advocare

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court in Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. K.K. Bansal & Rajesh Bansal revisited some of the most complex questions surrounding Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), infringement, FRAND licensing and patent exhaustion. The dispute concerned Philips' patent relating to DVD decoding technology, which Philips claimed was essential to the DVD standard and was being used by the Defendants in their DVD players without a licence. The Appellants argued that Philips had failed to establish that the patent was in fact a Standard Essential Patent, failed to prove infringement through proper technical evidence, and could not enforce its patent rights against manufacturers who had sourced chips and printed circuit boards from authorised suppliers. They further contended that Philips' rights stood exhausted once the patented components had been lawfully placed in the market and challenged the royalty rates awarded by the Single Judge as unsupported and non-FRAND. Philips, on the other hand, maintained that the patent corresponded to recognised foreign SEPs that were essential to DVD standards, that compliance with the DVD standard necessarily involved practising the patented technology, and that the Defendants had continued to exploit the invention despite being aware of Philips' licensing programme. Philips also defended the royalty rates awarded as reflecting FRAND licensing terms. In a detailed analysis, the Division Bench emphasised that SEP status, infringement and FRAND compliance cannot be presumed. A patentee must establish the existence of the relevant standard, demonstrate essentiality through proper claim mapping and technical evidence, prove infringement, and justify that the royalty sought is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. The Court also highlighted the practical difficulties involved in determining FRAND rates and the need for adequate disclosure of comparable licence agreements and surrounding commercial circumstances. The judgment is equally noteworthy for its discussion on the doctrine of exhaustion of patent rights. The Court examined whether the use of patented technology contained in lawfully acquired components could limit a patentee's ability to pursue downstream manufacturers, thereby engaging important questions regarding the scope of patent enforcement in complex technology products and supply chains. #IntellectualProperty #Patents #SEP #FRAND #PatentLitigation #DelhiHighCourt #Innovation #TechnologyLaw #IPLaw #StandardEssentialPatents

In Blackberry Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court adjudicated an appeal against the refusal of a patent application for a system that applies distinct visual attributes, such as color-coding, to message recipients based on their domain names. Designed for handheld devices, the invention aimed to provide a visual safeguard to help users distinguish between internal and external recipients, thereby preventing the accidental disclosure of sensitive information. The Appellant, Blackberry Limited, contended that the invention offered a robust technical solution to the physical constraints of mobile displays. They argued that the automated domain-verification process created a "technical effect" by enhancing data transmission security and improving the device’s messaging subsystem beyond a mere computer program. Conversely, the Respondent argued that selecting the wrong recipient is a subjective human error rather than a technical hardware failure. They maintained that the solution was purely algorithmic, falling under the Section 3(k) exclusion for computer programs per se, and lacked an inventive step as color-differentiation was already a well-known computing concept. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that a "technical problem" must be universal and inherent to the machine’s operation. The Court held that since the risk of sending a message to the wrong person depends on individual user behavior, it does not constitute a technical problem. Consequently, the software was classified as a computer program per se under Section 3(k) because it did not result in a technical transformation of the device. Finally, the Court ruled that the invention lacked an inventive step, as adapting known desktop categorization methods for mobile interfaces was an obvious progression for a person skilled in the art. #BlackberryLimited #LegalUpdate #IndianJudiciary #PatentLitigation #LegalInsights #IntellectualProperty #IPLaw #PatentDisputes

We are pleased to welcome Inttl Advocare as a Supporting Law Firm for the Conclave on Future Ready Law Firms and Legal Departments, taking place on May 29, 2026 at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. The conclave brings together founders, managing partners, general counsels and senior industry professionals for conversations around the changing structure of the legal profession, legal technology, agility, upskilling, succession planning and stronger collaboration between law firms and in-house teams. For discussing how you can be involved, please reach out to Bithika Anand at bithika@legalleague.co.in (+91 98100 98394) or connect with Nipun K Bhatiaa at nipun@legalleague.co.in (+91 99904 72512). #FutureReadyLawFirms #LegalDepartments #LegalIndustry #GeneralCounsel #LawFirms #InHouseCounsel #Leadership

We are pleased to share that Yashwant Rai Grover, Associate Partner, Inttl Advocare has been recognised as a Future Star in Intellectual Property and Dispute Resolution by Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific Rankings 2026. Yashwant has played an important role in strengthening the firm’s Intellectual Property and Dispute Resolution practices through his thoughtful approach, sharp understanding of the law, and ability to handle challenging matters with practical and commercially mindful solutions for clients. This recognition reflects his growing contribution to the profession and his continued commitment towards excellence in both contentious IP and commercial disputes. #FutureStar #BenchmarkLitigation #IntellectualProperty #DisputeResolution #IPLaw #CommercialLitigation #LegalRecognition #BenchmarkLitigationAPAC #InttlAdvocare

We are delighted to share that Mamta Jha, Co-Managing Partner at Inttl Advocare, has been recognised as a 𝐋𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫 for Intellectual Property and Dispute Resolution by Benchmark Litigation. Over the years Mamta has advised and represented several clients in a wide range of trademark, enforcement, and dispute resolution matters, earning the trust of clients across industries. Her work till date continues to contribute meaningfully to the evolving disputes and intellectual property landscape in India. #MamtaRaniJha #InttlAdvocare #BenchmarkLitigation #AsiaPacificRankings #IntellectualProperty #DisputeResolution #LitigationStar #TrademarkLaw

We are pleased to share that Hemant Singh, Founder & Managing Partner, Inttl Advocare , has been recognised as a 𝐋𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫 for Intellectual Property and Dispute Resolution in the Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific Rankings 2026. Over the years, Hemant Singh has been associated with several significant intellectual property disputes in the country, with experience spanning trademark, copyright, design, and enforcement matters. His work continues to contribute extensively to the evolving intellectual property jurisprudence in India #HemantSingh #InttlAdvocare #BenchmarkLitigation #AsiaPacificRankings #IntellectualProperty #TrademarkLaw #LitigationStar

Using AI-Tread mindfully❣️🏄 Are we gaining mental space with AI—or losing it? As legal professionals, AI has become part of how we work: helping us manage complexity, volume, and speed. But it also brings new, often unspoken pressure—higher expectations, constant optimization, and the feeling that we should always do more, faster, and better. During #Mental Health Month, #Leaderching opens a collective reflection on AI & mental health in the legal profession—and on why mindful selfleadership, boundaries, and human judgment matter more than ever in a world of accelerating technology. 💻 Mental health needs balance, peace, joy, sense of rewarding experience by overcoming obstacles, sense of belonging etc. Human intelligence is unique and it finds way to "engineer" oneself for a better, more fulfilling life, rather than relying on external circumstances for happiness. That’s where the human extraordinary element of conscious living and emotional balance play a significant role to achieve an enriching journey of life! 🍀 Faster is not always better!! Peaceful moments and right pace of life is bliss and joy! The inner peace is must for a joyful life!🧘♀️🤍 Artificial intelligence when used as a tool, the result is phenomenal so long it is used with conscious creation of balanced life instead of creating a race of faster results or an uncontrolled desire to achieve more and more … the endless loop capable of converting opportunity to slavery of AI! Outsourcing of human intelligence and complete dependency on AI erodes emotional and social intelligence leading to compromised mental health, lack of sense of fulfilment removes the zone of joy, growth, peace, compassion, empathy and many other path to peaceful and joyful life!!! Thank you Myrtha Hurtado Rivas for this great topic and initiative! I request Yixian Chen to share her thoughts!

Proud to share that Inttl Advocare has once again been recognised as a Tier 1 Firm in the Intellectual Property practice area by Benchmark Litigation in their Asia-Pacific Rankings 2026. We are thankful to our clients, colleagues, and peers for their trust and confidence and to our team for their consistent focus on delivering thoughtful and effective advice across complex IP issues. #BenchmarkLitigation #IntellectualPropertyRights #Recognition #IPR #BenchmarkRankings

In Huntington Alloys Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., the Bombay High Court considered the legality of the refusal of a patent application on the ground that the invention allegedly related to atomic energy. The Court held that while Section 4 of The Patents Act, 1970 read with Section 20 of The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 creates a statutory bar on patents relating to atomic energy, the exercise of such power must be supported by reasoned orders demonstrating a clear nexus between the invention and atomic energy. The Court found that the impugned communications issued by the Deputy Controller and the Department of Atomic Energy were unreasoned and conclusory. It therefore set aside the rejection and directed reconsideration of the patent application, while permitting the petitioner to place further material on record and pursue the matter through a speaking order. #PatentLaw #IntellectualProperty #IPLaw #PatentLitigation #PatentProsecution #InnovationLaw