We are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
We started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
We and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
We understand the constant need to stay informed about the latest developments in your field. In this section, we curate the most relevant and impactful updates covering developments in various laws.
Complaint filed before Consumer Fora against builder is not barred by RERA
The Supreme Court has held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘RERA Act’) does not bar the initiation of ‘consumer complaints’ by the apartment allottees against builders under the extant consumer protection laws.
Patents – Divisional application with different combination of components, permissible
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) has allowed the appeal filed againt rejection of the patent application in a case involving divisional application with different combination of components . The Appellant’s patent application was earlier refused by the Controller under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Patents – Declaration under PCT Regulation 4.17(ii) is sufficient for ‘proof of right’
In Dow Agrosciences LLC v. The Controller of Patents, the sole and primary issue pertained to the filing of proof of right by the applicant. The IPAB made reference to the applicable provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, the Patents Rules, 2003, and the relevant regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. It was held that declaration as per Rule 4.17(ii) of the PCT Regulations serves as sufficient proof of right.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) recently discussed the admissibility of amendments to claims in a patent application as per the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘Act’), and the need to conduct tests of novelty and inventive step on claims in patent applications. Another important aspect dealt with was the applicability of Section 3(i) of the Act.
Patents – IPAB reaffirms principles of natural justice while discussing prior art documents and description
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) recently reaffirmed the interminable role of the principles of natural justice in judicial and/or quasi-judicial decisions, whilst also clarifying aspects of patent law with respect to cited prior art documents and description of the invention.
Patents – Invention must be considered as a whole to determine inventive step
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) recently examined the determination of inventive step in a patent application as per the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970. The IPAB held that an invention must be considered as a whole to determine inventive step, and a conclusion cannot be drawn merely on the basis that the individual parts of the claim taken separately were known or obvious.
Patent of a biological process indicator – IPAB discusses objections under Sections 3(c), 3(d), 3(i), novelty claim and inventive step
The IPAB recently set aside the Assistant Controller’s Order rejecting the patent to ‘a biological process indicator, kit comprising it and in vitro method of validating a treatment process’. The Assistant Controller had held that the claims were not novel or inventive in light of the cited prior art, not patentable under Section 3(c) and 3(d) of Patents Act, in vitro methods as recited in the claims were not supported by the description, and that the claims indirectly attracted Section 3(i).
Patents – Divisional applications – IPAB lays down guidelines
The IPAB has recently passed a notable decision with respect to divisional applications by referring to the relevant provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, Patent Cooperation Treaty and legal precedents. Owing to different practices adopted by the applicants and the Indian Patent Office, in the interest of justice and for the sake of uniformity of practice, the IPAB in this case also listed certain guiding principles to address this issue.
Patents law not provides for selection of claims to search and examine, as per examiner’s convenience
In a recent order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) in University of Copenhagen v. The Controller of Patents, besides determining the patentability of the claimed invention, the IPAB also drew parallels between the international search report and the mandated search and examination reports from the Indian Patent Office (IPO), and the expectations from both the reports.
Patents – Fees payable by a small entity reduced – Patent Rules amended
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has on 4 November 2020 issued Notification No. G.S.R. 689(E) to notify the Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2020 making certain changes in the Patents Rules, 2003 to bring small entities at par with start-ups.
