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.
Pioneering work in the field of mRNA-based innovations - A case study
By Dr. Malathi Lakshmikumaran and Supriya Ramacha
Dr. Katalin Kariko and Dr. Drew Weissman have been named the winners of the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for their innovations concerning nucleoside base modifications that enabled the development of effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. The article in this issue of IPR Amicus traces the various developments made by Dr. Katalin Kariko in the field of RNA based therapeutics. The authors note that Kariko’s objectives aligned with BioNTech’s mission to improve public health at large, and how their approach to exploit the full potential of the immune system to effectively recognise and combat external and internal threats has been successful in crystallizing on novel therapeutics for cancer and vaccines to combat Covid-19.
Ratio decidendi
Patents - Explanation to Section 3(d) is not applicable to enzyme/biochemicals - Madras High Court
Patents - Improved thermostability gives ‘enhancement of the known efficacy’ of substance - Madras High Court
Patents - Determination of foetal fraction is related to diagnosis but is not ‘diagnostic’, and hence is patentable - Madras High Court gives elaborate decision clarifying on scope of word ‘diagnostic’ in Section 3(i)
‘Appropriate Office’ under Patents Rule 4 is not dispositive of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution - Madras High Court
Patents - Divisional Applications - Disclosure of plurality of inventions in provisional or complete specification is sufficient - Delhi HC Single Bench decision in Boehringer Ingelheim overruled - Division Bench of Delhi High Court
Trademark ‘Vajirao & Reddy’ is not deceptively similar to ‘Vajiram’ or ‘Vajiram & Ravi’ - No likelihood of confusion between ‘Vajiram’ and ‘Vajirao’, despite structural similarities - Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Stay of civil suit during pendency of rectification petition whether required after abolition of IPAB? - Question referred to Division Bench
Copyrights - Right in public performance of a song is incapable of exploitation without rights in underlying works
Trademark passing off - Provisions of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 are not applicable
