Case BriefsForeign Courts

United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia: Leonie M Brinkema, J., observed that, Congress’s use of the term “individual” in the

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Federal Court of Australia: While addressing the question of whether Artificial Intelligence Systems can be an inventor for the purposes of the

Case BriefsForeign Courts

England and Wales High Court (Patents Court): Marcus Smith, J. explained exhaustively whether an ‘Artificial Intelligence Machine’ DABUS can be categorized as

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Saroj Punhani (Information Commissioner), harmonised the conflicting interests of the parties keeping with the letter and spirit of

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

Consequent to Delhi High Court’s Order dated 23-04-2018 in writ petition No. WPC- 5590 of 2015 in the matter of Shamnad Basheer

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: While deciding the instant appeal raising questions important to the international market in telecommunications such as

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of United Kingdom: Full Bench of Lady Hale (President), Lord Reed (Deputy President), Lord Hodge, Lady Black and Lord Kitchin,

Case BriefsForeign Courts

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Chief Judge Prost, Bryson and Hughes, Circuit Judges ruled on a case involving

Intellectual PropertyLegislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (Revised Rules) have come into force from 16 May 2016. The key highlights of the Revised Rules