{"id":8574,"date":"2021-09-21T06:00:26","date_gmt":"2021-09-21T06:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/?p=8574"},"modified":"2021-09-21T06:00:28","modified_gmt":"2021-09-21T06:00:28","slug":"ipr-judgments-in-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/ipr-judgments-in-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"A Complete Analysis of IPR Judgments in 2021"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"has-drop-cap\">During the Covid-19 pandemic, all Courts in India are closed, but it doesn&#8217;t mean that they are resting; the Courts in India may have gone online or virtual in this pandemic, the Courts have judged on different fascinating topics, including IPR Judgments and some of them are very famous judgments. In this blog, we will discuss all vital IPR Judgments in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_65 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-light-blue ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<label for=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-item-6a3ace82ab674\" class=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-label\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/label><input type=\"checkbox\"  id=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-item-6a3ace82ab674\"  aria-label=\"Toggle\" \/><nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/ipr-judgments-in-2021\/#List_of_All_IPR_Judgments_in_India_in_2021\" title=\"List of All IPR Judgments in India in 2021\">List of All IPR Judgments in India in 2021<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/ipr-judgments-in-2021\/#Conclusion\" title=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"List_of_All_IPR_Judgments_in_India_in_2021\"><\/span>List of All IPR Judgments in India in 2021<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Following\nare all significant IPR Judgments in India 2021:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong><em>Xiaomi Corporation &amp; Others\nVs. InterDigital Technology Corporation &amp; Others, Delhi High Court<\/em><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This\nis one of the famous IPR judgments in India. In this matter, InterDigital\nCorporation filed a case for the violation of their <strong><em>SEP or Standard Essential Patents<\/em><\/strong>\nby Xiaomi Corporation, requesting the Court to find out the reasonable, fair,\nand non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rates. However, before the proposed case\nwas filed, Xiaomi had filed a case for setting royalty rates before the Wuhan\nCourt on June 09, 2020, in which an anti-suit judgment was passed against\nInterDigital on September 2020, and it&#8217;s against the anti-suit injunction that\nInterDigital applied for assistance before the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ndilemma before the Court was whether this injunction was restrictive of\nInterDigital Corporation\u2019s right to seek examination on the level of\nInfringement (which was not an issue of argument before the Wuhan Court) and if\nin such a case the High Court of Delhi could forgo the Comity of Courts\u2019\nprinciple by allowing an anti-execution or an anti-suit injunction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Responding\nin affirmative, the Court allowed India\u2019s first <strong><em>anti-anti-suit injunction <\/em><\/strong>declaring\nthat the subject matter of the commercial case before them and the case before\nthe Wuhan Court were not the same and the enforcement of overseas interest\ncannot be given priority over that of a domestic forum. An ordinary point of\ndispleasure with this order says that the Court ignored the fact that the infringement\ncase, if proven, would outcome in the determination of FRAND royalty rates\nwhich is already the subject matter of the Wuhan suit, thereby overlapping\nbecause of which the anti-suit injunction was provided and would lead to more\nconfusion in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong><em>The State of Maharashtra Vs.\nPiyush Subhashgai Ranipa, High Court of Bombay<\/em><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In this case, the Court discusses whether the violations under the Trademark Act and the <strong>Copyright Act<\/strong><sup><a href=\"https:\/\/copyright.gov.in\/documents\/copyrightrules1957.pdf\" class=\"text-primary\"><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/sup> that are actionable with imprisonment, which may extend to 3 years, were bailable or noted. The origin of the problem was the legal provision under CrPC that that categorises non-IPC offences punishable with imprisonment or jail for not more than three years as non-cognisable and bailable while violations punishable with imprisonment of three years and upwards as non-bailable and cognisable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In 2020, the complainant (Jain Irrigation System) accused Piyush Subhashgai, the CEO of Tera Flow Pipes (Petitioner), of violating their Trademark &#8220;Jain HDPE&#8221; and dealing with products bearing the <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/trademark-registration\" class=\"text-primary\">Trademark<\/a><\/strong>. The current case arose when Ranipa filed a bail application in case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The High Court of Bombay believed in the decision in the <strong><em>State of Rajasthan Bs. Nathu Ram, <\/em><\/strong>where it was that crimes, where the punishment may extend up to 3 years, would come under the group of non-bailable and cognisable, stating that the case was no longer <strong><em>res-Integra<\/em><\/strong>. Hence, the Court doesn\u2019t consider the impact of such an IPR judgment on matters where free speech could lead to likely Copyright and <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/trademark-infringement\" class=\"text-primary\">Trademark infringement<\/a><\/strong> based rights leading to stifling legal &amp; creative criticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong><em>Union of India Vs. Jorawar\nSingh Munday, High Court of Delhi<\/em><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Courts\nof India have tried to define and understand <strong><em>(EU General Data Protection\nRegulation in Article 17) <\/em><\/strong>law, balancing between the right to be\nde-linked from a detailed source and the right to information of the general\npublic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nthe current case, an individual excused in the case under the <strong><em>Narcotics\nAct, 1985 <\/em><\/strong>applied before the Court for the decision to be removed from\nthe digital platforms in the use of their Right to Privacy. Hence, the Court\ndiscussed whether the removal of the court order violated the duty to preserve\nclearness in judicial records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\na provisional order, the Court noted that the applicant had been eventually\nacquitted of all cases charges, and references to a narcotics case could bring\nsevere prejudice in their life. Hence, approving their privilege to interim aid\nwhile the case was argued further, the Court ordered Google to remove the judgment\nfrom the results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\njudgment of various Courts in India on the Right to Forgotten swings in both\nways with no steady outtake and hence will be dependent on the Courts\u2019\nobservation before which the issues come. With the <strong><em>&#8220;Personal Data Protection\nBill, 2019&#8221; <\/em><\/strong>still in the pipeline, the legal fate of the right\nremains unstable with the disputes observations of the courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong><em>Income Tax Commission vs.\nEngineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Private Limited<\/em><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Liable\nto correctly determine the sale status in this case, the Court had to inspect\nand understand the <strong><em>Doctrine of Exhaustion of Copyrights<\/em><\/strong> or the <strong><em>Doctrine\nof First Sale <\/em><\/strong>concerning software &amp; other online products and\nwhether they can be restricted by means of <strong><em>EULA (End-User Licensing Agreement)<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court deemed two appeals bringing out of High Court judgments that adjudged that the same of software consists of an interest in their <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/copyright-registration\" class=\"text-primary\">Copyright<\/a><\/strong>, which would be considered to be income in Income Tax Act needing deduction of tax at source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nCourt replied in affirmative about the relevancy of the Doctrine of Copyright\nExhaustion to computer programmes by studying the law-making intent for\nremoving the expression \u201c<strong><em>despite whether such copy has been\ngiven\/sold on hire on previous occasions<\/em><\/strong>\u201d from <strong><em>Section 14(b)(ii) in the Copyright\nAmendment Act, 1999 <\/em><\/strong>as a legal acknowledgement of the Doctrine of\nExhaustion, especially regarding computer programmes. But, the Court also said\nthat End-User Licensing Agreement could inflict reasonable restrictions, hence replace\nthe Doctrine of Exhaustion. Moreover, the Court held that conveying the product\nto a distributor doesn\u2019t amount to the first sale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Other than the above judgments, there are also many IPR judgments in India this year. \u00a0Laws and regulations are always even on a tightrope between the purposes of the creator and the knowledge awarded to them over the years by using &amp; discussion, and sometimes the distance between the two becomes an extensive gap. In these circumstances, the need for an hour becomes indisputable &amp; clear interpretations that don&#8217;t harm the right owners and the citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/role-of-ipr-in-software-industry-and-their-related-industries\/\">Role of IPR in Software Industry and Their Related Industries \u2013 An Overview<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>During the Covid-19 pandemic, all Courts in India are closed, but it doesn&#8217;t mean that they are resting; the Courts in India may have gone online or virtual in this pandemic, the Courts have judged on different fascinating topics, including IPR Judgments and some of them are very famous judgments. In this blog, we will [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":8575,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[695],"tags":[856],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8574"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8574"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8574\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8583,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8574\/revisions\/8583"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8575"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}