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.
Patents – Patentability with respect to inventive step, and proof of right
By IPR Team
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses at length the recent decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) in the case of Stempeutics Research Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, where the Board adjudicated patentability with respect to inventive step under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. In respect of Section 3(e), the IPAB was of the view that a product made from a novel ingredient could not fall under the purview of Section 3(e) and that the mere existence in the prior arts of each of the elements would not ipso facto mean that the invention would be barred under said section. The IPAB also addressed the issue of submission of proof of right under Section 7(2) and held that the refusal of the patent application despite fulfilling the proof of right requirement, though with delay which was beyond the control of the appellant, was untenable. According to the team, the order, besides its contribution to the medical world, succinctly clarified employer-employee relationship, particularly in respect to creation of intellectual property, and highlighted the role of prior art in allowing a claim...
Ratio decidendi
Trademarks – Non-user rectification – Party not aggrieved if there is no similarity in marks – IPAB
Patents – Divisional application when cannot be rejected – IPAB
Trademarks – Evidentiary value of unstamped licence agreement, concealment of material fact and prior user of mark for different goods in same classification – Delhi High Court
Patents – Prior art must be known to the public, and only claims of the prior art need to be considered when assessing objection of anticipation by prior claiming – IPAB
News Nuggets
Domain name registration – Plea that no technology to ensure non-availability of specific domain names, not acceptable
Glow & Handsome – Bombay High Court restrains defendants who is yet to bring its product in market
Patents – Order must be passed by same officer who heard the matter
Colour-based product packaging mark can be inherently distinctive
Embedding in website of works from other websites, when not requires copyright holder’s authorisation
Patents – IPAB suggests timelines for opposition proceedings
Nokia is a well-known mark – IPAB allows appeal against order of rejection
Patents – Divisional application with different combination of components, permissible
