Patents and Designs Quarterly Milestones (April – June 2025)

Partner: Kirti Balasubramanian, Associates: Rimjhim Mishra, Paarth Samdani, and Yashaswini Hareesh

Key Developments

Supreme Court clarifies protection of engineering drawings under copyright and design law

The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between copyright and design protection for industrial designs under Indian intellectual property law.¹ Interpreting Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act), which states that copyright in a design ceases once it has been reproduced industrially more than 50 times, the Court held that mere industrial application does not automatically extinguish copyright.

The Court established a twin test to determine whether an artistic work used industrially is covered under copyright or design protection:

• nature of work: whether the work is artistic or derived from industrial design; and
• functional utility test: whether the dominant purpose is aesthetic or functional.

Applying these tests, the matter was remanded to the Commercial Court in Vadodara, which had earlier dismissed the suit, for a comprehensive trial on facts and law. The Commercial Court ruled that Inox’s engineering drawings qualified as original “artistic” and “literary works” under the Copyright Act, and accordingly, granted an interim injunction in favour of Inox.

This sets an important precedent for engineering, manufacturing, and R&D-led companies seeking to protect technical drawings or schematics. Such works may retain copyright if they are original and not purely functional in nature.

Calcutta High Court clarifies patentability cannot be denied on grounds of speculative public policy

The Calcutta High Court set aside the Indian Patent Office’s (IPO) rejection of ITC’s application to patent a nicotine aerosol delivery device under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act) which excludes inventions contrary to public order, morality, or prejudicial to health or the environment.² The Court held that the rejection was unsustainable since exclusions under Section 3(b) apply to inventions causing direct criminal or disruptive outcomes, which mere association with tobacco does not satisfy. It also found the IPO’s health concerns unsubstantiated, cautioning against relying on subjective morality or generalised public health arguments without concrete scientific and technical evidence.

Importantly, the Court clarified that granting a patent is distinct from its commercial exploitation. It held that regulatory bans, such as those under the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, cannot be used to deny patent protection where statutory criteria are otherwise met. The case was remanded to the IPO for fresh consideration.

The judgment underscores that patentability must be assessed on legal standards, offering clarity and incentivising innovators in regulated sectors.

Calcutta High Court clarifies patentability of biotech inventions

In a key ruling for biotech patent applicants, the Calcutta High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application involving a tri-hybrid cell derived from three somatic cells.³ The Court held that such an invention does not fall within the exclusions under Sections 3(c) or 3(j) of the Patents Act, as the process involves deliberate human intervention and is not “essentially biological.”

Biotech applicants should clearly highlight artificial or technical intervention in claims to overcome Section 3(j) objections. The ruling should serve as a precedent for examination of biotech inventions, which were mechanically rejected under Section 3.

Revised Draft Computer-Related Inventions Guidelines clarify patentability of AI, machine learning, blockchain, and other emerging technologies

On 26 June 2025, the Controller of Patents released the revised Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (Revised Draft Guidelines), significantly clarifying the patentability of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), blockchain, and quantum computing. The Revised Draft Guidelines aim to clarify further the scope of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which excludes mathematical methods, business methods, algorithms, and computer programs per se from patent protection.

By incorporating illustrative new examples, detailed procedural guidance and case law references, the Revised Draft Guidelines aim to support a transparent and consistent framework for examination of computer-related inventions. A dedicated section on examining inventions related to AI, ML, DL, blockchain, and quantum computing now outlines when such inventions may be considered patentable, particularly where abstract concepts are applied to achieve tangible technical effects.

In line with the Madras High Court’s ruling in Caleb Suresh Motupalli v Controller of Patents⁴ the Revised Draft Guidelines reiterate heightened disclosure requirements for AI systems and provide illustrations to guide applicants. Applicants must now disclose:

• datasets with adequate characterisation;
• neural network architecture, along with sufficient detail such as depth, type of layers, and activation functions;
• training methodology;
• performance results; and
• pre-processing steps.

The disclosure requirements vary depending on the specific invention, which is clarified through illustrations.

Applicants in the AI/ML and emerging tech space should closely review the Revised Draft Guidelines and ensure that their claims, specifications, and overall presentation of the invention align with the updated expectations, particularly to address Section 3(k) objections.

Supreme Court clarifies limited scope of stay order in music licensing dispute; licensing obligations on public performance of sound recordings remain in effect

The Supreme Court recently clarified that its April 2025 order⁵ staying a Delhi High Court directive to Azure Hospitality to pay music license fees to Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) applies strictly to the parties involved and must not be construed as a broader exemption from licensing obligations. The dispute centres on whether copyright assignees such as PPL must be registered as copyright societies to issue public performance licenses, or can directly exercise such rights.

This clarification was made following widespread misinterpretation by various establishments, mistakenly treating the stay as a general exemption from the requirement to pay license fees for the public performance of sound recordings. With conflicting judgments from the Bombay and Madras High Courts, and the matter still pending final adjudication before the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court’s clarification has preserved the status quo.

As it stands, businesses that publicly perform sound recordings or music, particularly in the hospitality and entertainment sectors, must continue to obtain valid licenses.

The past quarter witnessed India negotiating trade arrangements with several nations. India concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom on 6 May 2025 and formally signed the India-United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) on 24 July 2025. CETA includes a chapter on intellectual property which covers trademarks, geographical indications (GI), patents, designs, copyrights and related rights, trade secrets, etc., and aims to reduce trade barriers by ensuring effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. It should also benefit Indian exporters of intellectual property-focused goods such as pharmaceuticals, branded textiles, consumer products, foods with GIs, engineering goods, auto components, etc. Businesses across sectors should evaluate their intellectual property portfolios, licensing frameworks, and cross-border enforcement strategies to leverage the CETA framework.

[1] Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v Inox India Ltd., 2025 INSC 483

[2] ITC Limited v Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark, IPDPTA No. 121 of 2023

[3] BTS Research International Pty Ltd v Controller General of Patents & Designs, IPDPTA 56 of 2023

[4] Caleb Suresh Motupalli v Controller of Patents, C.M.A. (PT) No. 2 of 2024

[5] Phonographic Performance Ltd. v Azure Hospitality, Special Leave to Appeal (C) NO(S). 10977/2025

If you require any further information about the material contained in this newsletter, please get in touch with your Trilegal relationship partner or send an email to alerts@trilegal.com. The contents of this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only and are not in the nature of a legal opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek legal counsel prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein.