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.
Patentability - High Court clarifies the language of Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970
By Eeshita Das and Supriya Ramacha
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus elaborately discusses a recent Madras High Court decision setting aside an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which had refused the grant of a patent under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court has held that Section 3(c) would only apply to a process of finding a hitherto undiscovered non-living substance by identifying and isolating it from nature. Further, on the facts of the case, the Court noted that the contention that the claimed antibody was naturally occurring solely because the sequence listing described the organism as Homo Sapiens, lacked support. It also noted that the claimed antibody was not isolated from a human being but was engineered. According to the authors, it remains to be seen whether Indian Patent Office will examine patent applications to determine the applicability of Section 3(c) more efficiently in view of this order.
Ratio decidendi
Patents - Method for compressing digital media - Delhi High Court sets aside objections under Section 3(k) relating to computer programme - Delhi High Court
Patents - Writ maintainable against rejection of pre-grant opposition but, manifest/jurisdictional error in impugned order necessary to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 - Delhi High Court
Patents - Non pursuance of Divisional Application after certain objections by Patent Office does not acknowledge merits of objections - Delhi High Court
Patents - No obviousness if a ‘mosaic’ is required to be made to get to the invention from prior arts - Court also clarifies on ‘person skilled in the art’ - Madras High Court
Patents - No deemed abandonment under Section 21(1) if objections in FER responded - Merit of response/explanation is not material - Madras High Court
Trademarks - ‘VIGOURA’ is deceptively similar to trademark ‘VIAGRA’ and thus infringes same - Delhi High Court
Trademarks - Mere phonetic, visual, and structural similarity not enough for rectification - Other determinative issues also to be considered - Delhi High Court
Trademark disparagement - Use of distinctive colour associated with another company and comparison of dissimilar products, particularly on a material feature, is wrong - Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to recover damages for any timely claim: US Supreme Court
Trademarks - ‘Indamet’ is deceptively similar to ‘Istamet XR CP’ - Delhi HC Division Bench upholds interim injunction by Single Bench
Trademarks - Statutory right in mark ‘FEVIKWIK’ not grants right of rectification against ‘KWIKHEAL’
Trademarks - ‘AO Smith’ and ‘Star Smith’ - Delhi HC affirms injunction against use of mark ‘Star Smith’
Trademarks - Madras HC grants injunction against use of ‘body builder’ logo deceptively similar to MRF’s ‘muscleman’ device
