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.
Coverage v. Disclosure – IPAB decides on what amounts to coverage and disclosure
By Eeshita Das and Dr. Parul Varshney
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses an IPAB decision wherein the Appellate Board has set aside the revocation order which was a result of post-grant opposition proceedings. The IPAB while examining the issues with respect to novelty and obviousness as well as timelines for filing of evidence, also decided on what amounts to coverage and disclosure. Relying on paragraph 138 of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Novartis AG v. Union of India, the IPAB observed that the coverage and disclosure discussed therein was of the same patent and not two different patents. Further, referring to paragraph 139, the IPAB observed that the coverage of a claim of a patent cannot go beyond the disclosure of said patent and if the same happens, then it goes against the principles laid down in Section 10(4) and Section 10(5) of the Patents Act, 1970. The IPAB has reiterated that if some matter is covered but not disclosed in a particular patent then that particular patent should be questioned and not a subsequent patent which describes and claims a specific subject matter ...
Ratio Decidendi
Trade marks – Separation of family business – Exclusivity of one over another – Delhi High Court
IP rights cannot be allowed to be violated even if drugs for use against Covid – Madras High Court
Anti-suit injunction against foreign proceedings not correct unless affecting Indian proceedings – Delhi High Court
Forum shopping – Afresh filing of suit in different court after withdrawing from another court, fatal – Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
IP protection for vaccines is enabler and not barrier to vaccine availability: EU Parliament
Copyright infringement – Direction to WhatsApp to suspend accounts unauthorizedly circulating film content
No requirement to expressly mention phrases ‘prima facie case’ and ‘balance of convenience’ in interlocutory order
No release of allegedly infringing goods during pendency of injunction application – Court rejects offer of bank guarantee
No confusion between marks ‘Industry’ and ‘Blue Industry’
Cross border reputation of law firms
Trade marks – Suffix ‘Rathi’ dominant in mark ‘BCLLPRATHI’
Disputes relating to assignment of trade marks are arbitrable
