LexOrbis

Home
India
Delhi
LexOrbis

Call Directions Website Contact the practice

Lexorbis - Intellectual Property Attorney

LexOrbis is a comprehensive Intellectual Property law firm extending IP and Legal services to global corporations, research institutions, technology driven industries and government entities in India and assisting Indian businesses to procure and protect Intellectual IP Rights across the globe

We offer an exceptional capability in maintaining an acceptable cost to quality matrix in the region. With over 35 IP professionals including lawyers and Patent agents, we pride ourselves in serving IP needs of businesses of varied sizes and structures with accuracy and a swift turnaround time in offering creative solutions to most complex legal and techno-legal issues.

23/09/2026

The CDSCO’s Guidance Document on Medical Device Software provides important clarity on the regulatory framework for Medical Device Software (MDSW) under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, covering software development, risk classification, clinical evidence, cybersecurity and post-market compliance.
𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬:
• The regulatory status of software depends primarily on its intended medical purpose.
• AI/ML, SaaS, cloud-based and connected software may qualify as MDSW where they perform medical functions.
• MDSW follows a risk-based classification from Class A to Class D.
• Manufacturers must maintain a Quality Management System covering the software lifecycle, including cybersecurity and updates.
• Clinical evidence, verification and validation must support the software’s safety, performance and intended use.
• The Guidance emphasises cybersecurity, version control and traceability throughout the software lifecycle.
• Post-market compliance includes AI/ML drift monitoring, cybersecurity, adverse-event reporting and corrective actions.
In this article, Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta examine the CDSCO Guidance and its implications for regulating and managing the lifecycle of Medical Device Software, including AI/ML-enabled products.
Read more: https://www.lexorbis.com/cdsco-issues-guidance-on-medical-device-software-under-the-medical-devices-rules-2017/

11/09/2026

The Madras High Court’s decision provides important guidance on the requirement for clear and consistent reasoning in patent refusal orders, particularly where lack of inventive step is alleged.
𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬:
• A patent refusal on the ground of lack of inventive step must be supported by clear and cogent reasoning.
• Where the Controller acknowledges a technical difference or advantage over the cited prior art, the order must explain why such distinction is nevertheless insufficient to establish inventive step.
• An order cannot acknowledge differences between the claimed invention and prior art and yet reject the application without addressing their significance.
• The Court found the refusal to be arbitrary, as the Controller had acknowledged differences relating to safety data and the absence of adverse clinical side effects but failed to adequately explain their relevance to inventive step.
• The refusal order was accordingly set aside and remanded for reconsideration by a different officer, with an opportunity of hearing and directions to pass a reasoned decision within four months.
In this article, DPS Parmar examines the Madras High Court’s decision and its implications for reasoned patent examination and the assessment of inventive step.
Read more: https://www.lexorbis.com/pet-appetite-and-weight-loss-drug-survives-patent-rejection-madras-high-court-finds-refusal-order-arbitrary/

Manisha Singh

07/09/2026

The Gujarat High Court’s decision provides important guidance on the assessment of interim injunctions in trademark disputes, particularly where prior use, registration, goodwill and commercial success are disputed.
𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬:
• An interim injunction requires a strong prima facie case, along with balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
• Courts should avoid conducting a detailed examination of disputed evidence or holding a mini-trial at the interim stage.
• Questions concerning prior use, continuous use, goodwill and reputation generally require examination at trial.
• Higher turnover, advertising expenditure and market presence may demonstrate commercial success but cannot, by themselves, establish prior adoption or superior trademark rights.
• A later user cannot claim superior rights merely because its sales or customer base are greater than those of an earlier or registered user.
• Disputed documents should not be conclusively rejected as unreliable without the benefit of a full trial.
• The Gujarat High Court accordingly set aside the interim injunction, finding that the Commercial Court had prematurely assessed disputed evidence and placed undue weight on commercial success.
In this article, Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta examine the decision and its implications for interim relief in trademark disputes, particularly the assessment of prior use, registration, goodwill and commercial success.
Read more: https://www.lexorbis.com/gujarat-high-court-sets-aside-interim-injunction-due-to-erred-assessment-of-evidence/

07/09/2026

The Delhi High Court’s decision provides important guidance on the application of Sections 3(d) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970 to pharmaceutical combination inventions, clarifying the distinction between a pharmaceutical product claim and a process of treatment.
𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬:
• Section 3(d) cannot be invoked without identifying the specific “known compound” of which the claimed invention is allegedly a derivative.
• A combination of separate active pharmaceutical ingredients cannot, merely by virtue of being a combination, be treated as a derivative of one another for the purposes of Section 3(d).
• Section 3(i) excludes processes for the treatment of human beings or animals, and does not apply to claims directed to pharmaceutical products or combinations.
• The expression “for simultaneous, separate or sequential administration” may operate as a functional descriptor of a pharmaceutical combination and does not, by itself, convert a product claim into a method of treatment.
• The scope of patent claims must be assessed based on the language and substance of the claims, rather than treatment details or examples contained in the specification.
• The Court also found that the cited prior art did not disclose the specific claimed combination, raising concerns with the Controller’s assessment of inventive step.
• The refusal order was accordingly set aside and remanded for de novo consideration, with an opportunity of hearing.
In this article, DPS Parmar examines the Delhi High Court’s decision and its implications for the patentability of pharmaceutical combinations, particularly the application of Sections 3(d) and 3(i) and the distinction between product claims and treatment processes.
Read more: https://www.lexorbis.com/refusal-of-pharmaceutical-combination-patent-application-set-aside-by-delhi-high-court/

Manisha Singh

03/09/2026

𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, through the Trade Marks Registry, has announced a 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 (𝐒𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭/𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐥), vide Public Notice Ref. No. TMR/Public Notice/2026/4546 dated August 31, 2026.
Linkhttps://ipindia.gov.in/storage/uploads/others/UiugX8hDIcT7x2AnUjCQRZagOHQaocMEUfIDgtHT.pdf
The drive is expected to facilitate the 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 where parties wish to withdraw the application or opposition, or have reached an amicable settlement.
The Special Disposal Drive will be conducted 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐒𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 4, 2026 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 2026,, in hybrid mode with both physical and virtual hearing options. The hearings will be conducted between 10:30 AM and 4:30 PM. Matters will be scheduled according to the filing year of the underlying trade mark application:
• September: Applications filed prior to 2000
• October: Applications filed between 2001-2010
• November: Applications filed between 2011-2020
• December: Applications filed from 2021 till date
Applicants, opponents and their authorised representatives must submit the relevant evidence, settlement deed or withdrawal request 𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 3 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐅𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠.
In case of non-appearance or non-compliance, the matter may be decided 𝐞𝐱 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐬 based on the records available with the Office, in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

Manisha Singh

29/08/2026

The Delhi High Court’s decision provides important guidance on the application of copyright law to 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐈 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐈-𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐬, while recognising that AI systems are not granted blanket immunity from infringement claims.
𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬:
• Electronic storage of copyrighted literary works during LLM training constitutes reproduction under Section 14(a)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
• LLM training may qualify as “research” under Section 52(1)(a)(i), with the concept of research capable of extending to machine learning undertaken for human benefit.
• Commercial use does not automatically exclude a use from the scope of fair dealing; commercial impact is relevant to the assessment of fairness.
• The Court applied a two-step test requiring the use to satisfy both the 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 and the 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭.
• In assessing fairness, the Court considered whether the use was limited to training, whether it competed with or caused commercial harm to the copyright owner, and whether the AI system served a public interest.
• Copyright protection extends to original expression in news reports, but not to the underlying facts and events communicated through them.
• The Court found that memorisation, regurgitation or substantial reproduction of copyrighted works through AI-generated outputs had not been established.
In this article, Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta examine the Delhi High Court’s decision and its implications for copyright protection in the context of generative AI, particularly the treatment of LLM training as research, electronic storage as reproduction, and the application of fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act.
Read more: https://www.lexorbis.com/delhi-high-court-examines-fair-dealing-in-generative-ai-training-and-copyright-protection/

14/08/2026

On this 80th Independence Day, we salute the spirit that has journeyed us through 79 years of freedom, resilience, and progress.

Manisha Singh

10/08/2026

A well-structured 𝐈𝐏 𝐝𝐮𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 process helps startups identify and address these risks before approaching investors, strengthening both investment readiness and long-term commercial value.
Key takeaways:
• Identify and protect the startup's core IP assets, including trademarks, patents, copyrights, designs and trade secrets.
• Ensure pre-incorporation IP created by founders is properly assigned to the company.
• Review ownership, registrations, contracts, confidentiality obligations and third-party licences to minimise legal risks.
• Conduct patent freedom-to-operate assessments and maintain clear documentation to strengthen investor confidence.
• Present a clean, well-managed IP portfolio that supports valuation and facilitates smoother fundraising.
In this article, Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta present a practical IP Due Diligence Checklist for Startup Investment Readiness, highlighting the key legal and commercial considerations that startups should address to build a robust IP portfolio and enhance their attractiveness to investors.
Read more: https://www.lexorbis.com/ip-due-diligence-checklist-for-startup-investment-readiness/

04/08/2026

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the issuance of renewal notices under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, is a mandatory statutory obligation and that trademark rights cannot be lost due to defective service of such notices by the Trademarks Registry.
𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐱 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝. The Court held that the Registry could not rely on technical objections after consistently communicating with the proprietor’s authorised agent at an updated address.
The ruling also reinforces an important principle:
👉 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬.
The judgment provides important clarity on:
• Mandatory nature of renewal notices under Section 25(3)
• Consequences of defective service by the Registry
• Importance of administrative consistency in trademark proceedings
• The Court’s approach to delays and laches in renewal disputes
• The balance between procedural compliance and protection of IP rights
In this article, Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta analyse this significant ruling and its implications for trademark owners and portfolio management.
🔗 Read the full article: https://www.lexorbis.com/delhi-high-court-allows-trademark-renewal-after-6-year-delay-due-to-failure-of-statutory-notice-service/

04/08/2026

The 𝐉𝐚𝐧 𝐕𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐰𝐚𝐬 (𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬) 𝐀𝐜𝐭, 2026 has introduced a significant reform to India's patent regime by providing 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 (𝐅𝐅𝐋) 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 39 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭, 1970. The amendment ensures that where the Central Government is satisfied that an invention was 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲, criminal liability under Section 118 will not apply.
The reform strikes a balance between preserving India's national security interests and promoting a more innovation-friendly and business-oriented patent ecosystem.
Key takeaways:
• Criminal punishment under Section 118 is no longer automatic for every contravention of Section 39.
• Relief is available where the Central Government concludes that the invention was not relevant to defence purposes or atomic energy.
• The amendment does not dilute the foreign filing licence requirement—non-compliance may still result in abandonment or revocation under the Patents Act.
• Inventors, start-ups, universities, and multinational applicants should continue to maintain robust FFL compliance procedures.
In this article, Manisha Singh and Joginder Singh analyse this important reform under the Jan Vishwas Act, 2026 and its implications for inventors, patent applicants, and businesses operating in an increasingly global innovation landscape.
Read more: https://www.lexorbis.com/a-welcome-reform-under-the-jan-vishwas-act-2026-relief-to-inventors-and-applicants-for-non-compliance-with-foreign-filing-licence-provisions/

Address

709/710 Tolstoy House, 15-17 Tolstoy Marg
Delhi
110001

Telephone

+911123716565

Website

http://www.lexorbis.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when LexOrbis posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to LexOrbis:

LexOrbis

23/09/2026

11/09/2026

07/09/2026

07/09/2026

03/09/2026

29/08/2026

14/08/2026

10/08/2026

04/08/2026

04/08/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request