India: An Intellectual Property Overview
Introduction
The period 2024–25 marked a pivotal phase in the evolution of Indian intellectual property law. Courts, regulators and policymakers were required to respond to rapid technological change, particularly the rise of artificial intelligence, while simultaneously addressing long-standing doctrinal and enforcement challenges across patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and personality rights. Judicial decisions during this period reflect a maturing IP ecosystem, one increasingly confident in balancing innovation incentives, commercial certainty, public interest and procedural discipline within a globalised digital economy.
Standard Essential Patents: Evidentiary Rigour and Commercial Realism
Standard essential patent (SEP) jurisprudence witnessed its most definitive consolidation during this period. On 20 February 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment in Philips v DVD Replicators (CS (COMM) 423/2016, 499/2018, and 519/2018), concluding prolonged litigation against three unlicensed DVD manufacturers. Despite the patent having expired in 2015, the Court conducted full trials on infringement, validity and FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) conduct, ultimately holding the defendants to be unwilling licensees. The Court upheld Philips’ FRAND rates and awarded substantial compensatory damages, aggravated damages, interest and costs.
The judgment laid down foundational principles for Indian SEP law, including intolerance of hold‑out behaviour, recognition of post‑judgment interest until realisation, conversion of foreign‑currency‑linked damages into Indian rupees at the date of judgment, tolerance thresholds for inadvertent Section 8 disclosure lapses, and the first express recognition of vicarious infringement in an SEP context. On appeal, the Division Bench, by order dated 4 January 2026, declined to stay the judgment, affirming findings on infringement, essentiality, validity and FRAND rates, while directing bank guarantees pending reconsideration of quantification.
At the interim stage, courts adopted a more pragmatic stance. In Dolby Laboratories v Lava International Ltd., the Delhi High Court departed from the rigid four‑fold test articulated in Nokia v Oppo, holding that pro‑tem security deposits could be ordered based on prima facie technical evidence and the implementer’s negotiation conduct. This approach was endorsed by the Division Bench in InterDigital Technology Corporation v Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., emphasising that implementers cannot indefinitely exploit SEPs while delaying licensing negotiations.
This trajectory culminated in Ericsson v Lava International Ltd., where the Delhi High Court awarded INR2.44 billion in damages for past SEP infringement, underscoring that FRAND compliance is rooted in good‑faith negotiation rather than formalistic defences. Parallel settlements, including Philips v Vivo and earlier Nokia–Oppo resolutions, demonstrate that credible judicial enforcement has begun to influence commercial behaviour, resulting in a dual‑track SEP regime combining rigorous trials with pragmatic interim protection.
Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Law at an Inflection Point
The intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law emerged as one of the most consequential themes of the period. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v OpenAI, pending before the Delhi High Court, represents India’s first major AI‑copyright dispute. ANI alleges unauthorised use of copyrighted news content for training large language models, storage, reproduction and false attribution. OpenAI has raised fair‑use defences, jurisdictional objections and reliance on publicly accessible material. The case raises foundational questions concerning training data, reproduction and territorial application of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Judicial reasoning has already adapted to digital realities. In Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v Mohalla Tech Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court adopted an expansive approach to territorial jurisdiction, holding that accessibility of infringing content and user interaction within the forum state may suffice. The reasoning has implications for AI‑related copyright claims, platform liability, and cross‑border dissemination.
Policy responses have been equally significant. In December 2025, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade released a Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright, proposing a mandatory blanket licensing regime granting AI developers access to lawfully accessed copyrighted works in exchange for statutory royalties.
Courts also reaffirmed transactional clarity and enforcement discipline. In Phonographic Performance Ltd. v Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd., the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that valid copyright assignments under Section 18 vest enforceable public performance rights without additional formalities. In Elsevier Ltd. v Alexandra Elbakyan, the Court ordered blocking of Sci‑Hub and mirror websites for breach of undertakings, reinforcing the rogue‑website doctrine laid down in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v 1337X.
In Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v A.R. Rahman, the Court clarified the boundary between public‑domain musical elements and protectable expression.
Trade Mark Law: Innovation, Expansion and Enforcement Discipline
Trade mark law during this period combined administrative modernisation with doctrinal refinement. The Trade Marks Registry launched AI‑powered search tools and the “IP Saarthi” chatbot. In Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd., India recognised its first olfactory trade mark.
Judicial enforcement remained robust. In Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v Cricllk.com, the Delhi High Court granted dynamic injunctions against rogue sports‑streaming websites. In TikTok Ltd. v Registrar of Trade Marks, the Bombay High Court upheld refusal of well‑known trade mark status.
The Delhi High Court declared NUTELLA and RITZ to be well‑known trade marks and reaffirmed doctrinal flexibility in Crocs Inc. v Bata India Ltd. In WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v WOW Burger, the Division Bench granted interim relief based on deceptive similarity.
Strong deterrence was evident in Johnson & Johnson v Pritamdas Arora. In Western Digital Technologies Inc. v Hansraj Dugar, the Court reaffirmed international exhaustion.
Procedural rigour was emphasised in M/s Shambhunath & Bros. v Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Amazon Technologies Inc. v Lifestyle Equities.
Personality Rights in the Age of AI
Personality and publicity rights jurisprudence expanded significantly in response to digital misuse. In Arijit Singh v Codible Ventures LLP, the Bombay High Court recognised a singer’s voice as a protectable facet of personality.
Wide‑ranging relief was granted in Salman Khan v John Deo(s) and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v Aishwaryaworld.com. Similar protections were extended in matters concerning Anil Kapoor, Abhishek Bachchan, Akkineni Nagarjuna, and Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao (NTR). Judicial restraint was exercised in Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v Peppy Store.
Design Law: Functional Boundaries Reinforced
In Relaxo Footwears Ltd. v Aqualite India Ltd., protection was upheld for simple consumer products. The Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v Inox India Ltd. clarified the overlap between copyright and design protection.
In Dura‑Line India Pvt. Ltd. v Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., design infringement claims over functional features were rejected. Procedural discipline was reinforced in Lalita Goyal v Sumit Garg.
Patent Law: Disclosure, Divisionals and Emerging Technologies
In Google LLC v Controller of Patents, penalties were imposed for non‑disclosure. In Syngenta Ltd. v Controller of Patents, divisional practice was clarified. In FMC Corporation v Natco Pharma Ltd., caution was urged at the interim injunction stage.
In Novartis AG v Controller of Patents and Designs and Novo Nordisk A/S v Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., courts demonstrated heightened scrutiny of pharmaceutical patents.
The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 liberalised patentability for nuclear‑energy‑related inventions.
Conclusion
The Indian intellectual property landscape in 2024–25 reflects consolidation, confidence and doctrinal maturity. Courts strengthened enforcement while maintaining procedural discipline and addressed emerging technologies through principled reasoning. Together, these developments position India as a commercially credible and technologically responsive IP jurisdiction.