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.
Delhi High Court lays down rules of claim construction – Literal rule of interpretation to be applied while interpreting claims
By Dr. Malathi Lakshmikumaran and T. Srinivasan
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus elaborately discusses a recent Delhi High Court decision wherein the Court has emphasised that the literal rule of interpretation should be applied while interpreting patent claims. Laying down several guidelines for claim construction, the Court had stated that each claim must be understood according to the ordinary meaning of the words used in a claim. It had also highlighted that the claims must be construed objectively and understood ‘on its own terms ’. Applying the law, the Court ascertained the ordinary meaning imputed to the term ‘comprising ’, used in the claim and stated that where a claim comprises of three elements ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, it would still be an infringement if someone adds a fourth element ‘D’. According to the authors, claims must be read as ordinary English sentences without incorporating or changing their meaning by reference to the language used in the body of the specification. They also state that two independent patent claims from different patent applications must not be construed in reference to each other...
Statute Update
Biological diversity Act sought to be amended – Bill proposed in Lower House of Indian Parliament
Ratio decidendi
Words ‘Renaissance’ and ‘Sai Renaissance’ are phonetically as well as visually similar – Confusion to be presumed in infringement action when marks and goods/services identical – Supreme Court
Trademarks ‘Rooh Afza ’ and ‘Dil Afza ’ not similar – No confusion even if words ‘Rooh ’ and ‘Dil ’ connote deep emotion – Delhi High Court
Trademark disparagement – No assumption that goods depicted in advertisement are that of plaintiff, merely because plaintiff is a dominant market player – Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Limitation for judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings – Supreme Court excludes period from 15 March 2020 till 28 February 2022
‘Tattva ’ and ‘Tatva(s) ’ are phonetically identical and not merely similar
IPR disputes – Delhi High Court implores members of bar, specially Senior Counsels, to keep constraints of time of Court in mind
Identity of subject matter in two suits – Second suit to be stayed
Singapore amends its IP laws to streamline IP policies and processes
