ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Intellectual Property Law firm India

  I. Overview and Procedural Posture The Delhi High Court, in an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, upheld the Controller's rejection (order dated 27.04.2023) of the patent application (No. 201817033732) titled "Organic Compounds" and covering deuterated heterocycle-fused gamma-carboline compounds (Formulas I–IV). The claims fell into two clusters: Claims 1–3 & 5–10 (Formula I–III compounds) and Claims 4 & 5–7 (Formula IV compounds), with Claim 11 as a dependent pharmaceutical composition claim. The claimed invention was for the treatment of diseases involving 5-HT2A receptor, serotonin transporter (SERT) and/or pathways involving dopamine D1/D2 receptor signalling systems and also has application in the treatment of diseases/disorders like anxiety, psychosis, schizophrenia, sleep disorders, sexual disorders, migraine, etc. The rejection rested on lack of novelty (Section 2(1)(j)), obviousness (Section 2(1)(ja)), and non-patentability under Sect...

Executive Summary On 2nd July 2026, the Delhi High Court awarded Bata India Ltd. actual litigation costs of Rs. 24,63,400 against Crocs Inc. USA, bringing the twelve-year design infringement suit to a close after the underlying design registration was cancelled by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs (while Crocs' composite suits on the shape trademark and passing off remain pending) . The order is a useful case study for foreign rights-holders and their Indian counsel on three fronts: (i)                       the consequences of pursuing a design suit where validity is later successfully challenged; (ii)                     how Indian commercial courts now compute and award actual, realistic costs rather than nominal or symbolic amounts; and (iii)    ...

Rukhmani Keshwani v. Raju Agarbatti Works & Anr. , FAO (COMM) 99/2024 (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, decided 01.07.2026) Why This Case Matters For any business that sells through a website, a marketplace listing, or a platform like IndiaMart, Amazon, or Etsy, this ruling answers a question that keeps coming up in Indian IP litigation: can you be sued for trademark or copyright infringement in a city where you have no office, no warehouse, and no employee — simply because your goods are listed online and reachable there? The Delhi High Court's answer, reaffirming and extending its own recent line of authority, is yes — provided the online listing shows purposeful commercial targeting , not mere passive accessibility. Actual completed sales are not required. This has direct consequences for how foreign and domestic manufacturers, franchisors, and e-commerce sellers should think about litigation risk exposure across Indian jurisdictions. The Dispute in Brief R...