Skip to main content

Due in part to its often-ambiguous requirements, Section 8 of India’s Patents Act has become a nightmare for patent owners, explains Pravin Anand.

The 2009 Chemtura decision of the Delhi High Court made Section 8 compliance very stringent. In effect, even if a small communication between the patent office of some remote country regarding an equivalent patent is not reported to the patent office in India, the consequences may prove to be fatal and the patent may be cancelled.

This generated tremendous fear in the minds of patent owners in all industries whether pharmaceutical, information technology, bio-technology, automobiles, mechanical and others. Corporations, associations and academics are all looking at a more practical and realistic approach to Section 8.

This article was published in Asia IP January 2014.

Read more

Most Recent

News & Insights

VIEW ALL
News & Updates
Nov 04, 2025

In a remarkable conclusion to one of India’s longest-running trademark disputes, the order authored by Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Hon’ble High Court

DELHI HIGH COURT BRINGS 25-YEAR “CELEBRATIONS” TRADEMARK DISPUTE TO A WHOLESOME CLOSE
News & Updates
Nov 02, 2025

Partner Litigation, Dhruv Anand, spoke to Times of India for its dive-deep article on ‘Stars v AI’ giving a 360 degree roundup of what actually makes

Stars vs AI: Dhruv Anand speaks to ToI about personality rights and the intent behind protecting them
Thought Leadership
Oct 22, 2025

‘First published on Lexology’ By: Pravin Anand, Vaishali R Mittal and Siddhant Chamola A. INTRODUCTION Standards‑essential patents (“SEPs”)

Interim Licences vs Anti Interim Injunctions: a Cross Border Stand Off
Thought Leadership
Oct 16, 2025

‘First published on Lexology’ By: Safir Anand and Omesh Puri The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks has issued a

Indian Trade Marks Office issues Office Order – Streamlining Registry Function