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.
Inventive step assessment – IPAB elucidates important principles
By R Parthasarathy and Vindhya S Mani
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus elaborately discusses a recent decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) wherein the IPAB allowed the appeal challenging the revocation of Indian Patent No. 262968 by the Joint Controller following post-grant opposition proceedings. The patent was earlier revoked on the ground of lack of inventive step. The article notes that although the tests for inventive step assessment were established by the Delhi High Court in Roche v. Cipla [2016 (65) PTC 1 (Del)], there was a dearth of practical pointers for the application of those tests to inventions in various fields of technology, thus making the assessment very subjective. According to the authors, the instant IPAB order provides some important pointers for inventive step assessment, especially for inventions in the pharmaceutical sector; such as the necessity to assess whether cited prior art documents are analogous in nature and the necessity to identify the motivation in the prior art for a person skilled in the art to undertake substitutions in prior art compound(s) without having knowledge of the claimed invention and taking into account any ‘teaching away’ in the prior art documents...
Ratio decidendi
Trademark infringement – Interlocutory injunction cannot be granted merely on the basis of public interest – Delhi High Court
Patents – Novelty, bringing evidence after fixing of hearing, and maintainability of post-grant opposition proceedings – IPAB
Trademarks – Reputation of defendant in a case of passing-off – Bombay High Court
Trademarks ‘CFA’ and ‘BFA’ are phonetically and visually dissimilar and are not identical – Delhi High Court
Remand when Controller’s order refuses patent due to non-appearance for hearing – IPAB
News Nuggets
Trademarks – Likelihood of confusion – Reputation of person to be considered – CJEU also holds that reputation of the name ‘Messi’ constituted a well-known fact
Filing of IPR matters at eleventh hour must stop – Bombay High Court observes that parties in IPR matters cannot expect Courts to push aside all other cases
Waiver of certain provisions of TRIPS proposed to fight COVID-19 – India and South Africa jointly recommend waiver from implementation, application and enforcement of Sections 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement
