IPR
Topic 94 Landmark Emerging Tech Cases
Topic 94 — Landmark Emerging Technology IP Cases: A Compendium
Indian emerging-technology IP jurisprudence has developed rapidly, particularly through the Delhi High Court's active engagement with Section 3(k) Patents Act software exclusion and the recent ANI Media v. OpenAI (2024) AI-copyright litigation. The foundational case is Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2019:DHC:6944) — establishing the technical contribution/effect/advancement test for software patents. Microsoft Technology Licensing v. Asst Controller (2023:DHC:3342), OpenTV v. Controller (2023:DHC:3305), and Raytheon v. CGPDTM (2023:DHC:6673) refined the framework. The 2024 cases — Ab Initio Technology v. Controller (2024:DHC:5708) for blockchain, Comviva Technologies for fintech, Google v. Controller for instant messaging, Blackberry v. Asst Controller (2024:DHC:6571), and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International (2024:DHC:2698) for SEPs — established sophisticated frameworks. The CRI Guidelines 2025 (29 July 2025) consolidate this jurisprudence. The watershed AI cases — ANI Media v. OpenAI (CS(COMM) 1028/2024; 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8120) and Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office (Del HC 2025) — are pending. International cases — Hermès v. Rothschild ($133,000 NFT trademark), Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ryder Ripps ($1.6M+ NFT), Waymo v. Uber ($245M trade secret), TCS v. CSC ($210M) — provide reference. This topic consolidates 25 key emerging tech IP cases into a single comprehensive reference compendium.
1. Foundational Software Patent Cases
📖 Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Ors., 2019:DHC:6944 (Del HC) Facts — Patent application rejected on grounds of Section 3(k) exclusion. Petitioner challenged. Holding — Delhi HC established the foundational test: "Computer programs must be assessed for their technical contribution, technical effect, and technical advancement to be considered patentable." Three-prong test: (i) Technical contribution — solves a technical problem. (ii) Technical effect — produces concrete technical outcome. (iii) Technical advancement — improves on prior art technically. Significance — Foundational Indian case for software patentability. Cited in nearly every subsequent CRI case. Adopted in CRI Guidelines 2025. |
📖 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Intex Technologies, 2015 (Del HC) Facts — First major Indian SEP case; software-related patent infringement. Holding — Delhi HC ruled software providing technical contribution or effect (not merely computer program) is patentable. Significance — Pre-Ferid Allani foundation; first major recognition of technical effect test. |
2. Cases Cited in CRI Guidelines 2025
📖 Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Asst Controller of Patents, 2023:DHC:3342 (Del HC) Facts — Microsoft software patent application; Section 3(k) rejection appealed. Holding — Delhi HC framework: (i) Software patents not categorically excluded. (ii) Technical effect demonstration crucial. (iii) Detailed examination of technical contribution required. Significance — Reinforced Ferid Allani framework; cited in CRI Guidelines 2025. |
📖 OpenTV Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2023:DHC:3305 (Del HC) Facts — OpenTV patent application for TV-related software/business method. Holding — Delhi HC clarified BUSINESS METHOD bar: (i) Business methods are ABSOLUTELY excluded under Section 3(k). (ii) Even technically implemented business methods excluded. (iii) Substance over form approach. (iv) India's position differs from UK/EU. Significance — Confirmed India's ABSOLUTE business method exclusion. Critical distinction from UK/EU/US. Fintech, e-commerce, digital business platforms face significant restrictions. |
📖 Raytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs, 2023:DHC:6673 (Del HC) Facts — Raytheon patent application; Section 3(k) issues. Holding — Delhi HC examined CRI examination criteria. Reinforced technical effect requirement. Significance — Cited in CRI Guidelines 2025; standards for technical disclosure. |
3. Recent 2024 Indian Cases
📖 Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Controller of Patents & Designs, 2024:DHC:5708 (Del HC) Facts — Patent application related to BLOCKCHAIN technology rejected on Section 3(k) grounds. Holding — Delhi HC clarified technical effect standard: "If an innovative input in the form of a process, system, or method enhances the computational ability of the processor, the effect is technical." Specific Standards: (i) Theoretical concept of distributed ledger — NOT patentable. (ii) Practical implementation with concrete technical outcome — MAY be patentable. (iii) Technical effect must be specific (latency reduction, tamper-proof provenance). Significance — Foundational case for BLOCKCHAIN patents in India. |
📖 Comviva Technologies Limited v. Asst Controller of Patents, 2024 (Del HC) Facts — Comviva patent application for "Methods and Devices for Authentication of Electronic Payment Card using Electronic Token" (IN201611000234). Initially rejected as business method + computer programme per se. Holding — Delhi HC observed: (i) Business method involvement does not render invention unpatentable per se. (ii) Technical features that enhance security in electronic transactions — patentable subject matter. (iii) Mere involvement of business activity does not preclude patent. Order — Remanded for reconsideration; instructing assessment of technical merits beyond business aspects. Significance — Important fintech/payment patent case. Confirmed: technical features within business context can be patented. |
📖 Google Inc. v. Controller of Patents (Del HC, 2 April 2024) Facts — Google's Indian Patent Application No. 5429/DELNP/2007 for managing instant messaging sessions across multiple devices. Rejected by IPO in 2019 for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja). Holding — Delhi HC found: (i) Invention provided technical advancement over existing solutions. (ii) Set aside IPO's rejection. (iii) Directed grant of patent. Significance — Software patent successfully granted; demonstrates importance of demonstrating technical advancement. |
📖 Blackberry v. Asst Controller of Patents and Designs, 2024:DHC:6571 (Del HC) Facts — Blackberry patent application; CRI examination standards. Holding — Delhi HC reinforced examination standards. Detailed framework for technical effect demonstration. Significance — Cited in CRI Guidelines 2025. |
📖 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd., 2024:DHC:2698 (Del HC, 28 March 2024) Facts — Major SEP infringement case. Ericsson sued Lava for infringement of multiple Standard Essential Patents related to 2G, EDGE, and AMR technologies. Holding — Delhi HC found Lava liable; awarded substantial damages. Seven-Step Novelty Test: (1) Identify the invention. (2) Identify the prior art. (3) Compare claim by claim. (4) Assess differences. (5) Identify inventive step. (6) Apply person skilled in art test. (7) Conclude on novelty. Significance — WATERSHED Indian SEP case. Confirmed: (i) FRAND obligations enforceable by Indian courts. (ii) Established willingness-to-license standard. (iii) Seven-step novelty test adopted by CRI Guidelines 2025. (iv) Substantial damages capability. |
4. AI Cases
📖 Ani Media (P) Ltd. v. Open AI Inc. & Anr., CS(COMM) 1028/2024; 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8120 (Del HC) Background — In November 2024, Asian News International (ANI) sued OpenAI alleging: (i) OpenAI used ANI's copyrighted news content to train ChatGPT (LLM) without authorization. (ii) ANI material accessible only to subscribers. (iii) OpenAI republished material via ChatGPT. (iv) OpenAI also falsely attributed news to ANI causing reputational harm. OpenAI Defense — ANI website blocklisted October 2024; domain excluded from future training; no interim injunctions in similar US/Canada/Germany cases. Court Order (19 November 2024) — Delhi HC framed four key questions: 1. Whether storage of ANI's data for training amounts to copyright infringement? 2. Whether use of ANI's data to generate user responses amounts to infringement? 3. Whether use qualifies as "fair use" under Section 52? 4. Whether Indian courts have jurisdiction (servers in USA)? Status — Judgment reserved 2025; pending decision. Significance — WATERSHED CASE. First major judicial scrutiny of generative AI in India. Will set precedent for AI training data rights, fair use, jurisdiction. |
📖 Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office (Del HC 2025) Background — Stephen Thaler filed application before Indian Copyright Office for "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" — artwork generated autonomously by his DABUS AI system. Application pending since 2022. Holding — Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed Copyright Office to: (i) Conduct hearing on the application. (ii) Conclude proceedings within 8 weeks. (iii) Decide AI-generated artwork copyright registration. Significance — First major Indian case directly addressing AI authorship; recognizes "larger questions on authorship in age of AI". |
5. Blockchain Cases
📖 Priya Randolph & Anr. v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs (2023) Facts — Patent application for blockchain-based system rejected on Section 3(k) grounds. Holding — Court ruled blockchain technology can be eligible for patent when providing solution to a technical problem. Significance — Foundational Indian case establishing blockchain patent eligibility. |
6. International NFT Cases
📖 Hermès International v. Mason Rothschild ("MetaBirkins"), 2023 (USA) Facts — Mason Rothschild created and sold "MetaBirkins" — NFT collection of digital fur-covered Birkin handbag images. Hermès sued for trademark infringement. Holding — US jury found liable for trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting. $133,000 awarded. Significance — Foundational NFT trademark case; real-world trademark law applies to NFTs. |
📖 Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) v. Ryder Ripps, 2023 (USA) Facts — Yuga Labs (BAYC creator) sued Ryder Ripps for "RR/BAYC" copying NFT collection. Holding — Court ruled in Yuga Labs' favour; trademark infringement; $1.6+ million damages. Significance — Confirms NFT trademark protection; satirical use defence rejected. |
📖 Nike Inc. v. StockX, 2022 (USA) Facts — StockX sold "Vault NFTs" linked to Nike sneakers. Status — Litigation ongoing; complex authenticity questions. Significance — NFT-physical product linkage issues. |
7. International AI Cases
📖 Thaler v. Vidal (Stephen Thaler v. Andrew Hirshfeld/Vidal), 2022 (US Federal Circuit) Facts — DABUS AI system listed as inventor on US patent applications. Holding — US Federal Circuit affirmed: Patent Act requires "natural person" as inventor; AI cannot be inventor. Significance — US federal court confirmation of AI-as-inventor rejection. Foundational global precedent. |
📖 Thaler v. Comptroller-General (UK Supreme Court 2023) Facts — DABUS application in UK; Comptroller refused. Holding — UK Supreme Court affirmed: AI cannot be inventor under UK Patents Act. Significance — UK Supreme Court confirmation; aligned with US/EPO/India. |
📖 Andersen v. Stability AI (USA, ongoing) Facts — Artists sued Stability AI for training on copyrighted images without authorization. Status — Federal court litigation ongoing; partial dismissals; key questions pending. Significance — Pioneer case for AI training data copyright. |
8. Master Quick-Reference — All 25 Key Emerging Tech IP Cases
# | Case | Year/Court | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ferid Allani v. UoI | 2019:DHC:6944 | Foundational Section 3(k) test |
2 | Ericsson v. Intex | 2015 Del | First major SEP case |
3 | Microsoft v. Asst Controller | 2023:DHC:3342 | Software patent framework |
4 | OpenTV v. Controller | 2023:DHC:3305 | Business method ABSOLUTE bar |
5 | Raytheon v. CGPDTM | 2023:DHC:6673 | CRI examination criteria |
6 | Priya Randolph v. Dep Controller | 2023 | Blockchain patent eligibility |
7 | Ericsson v. Lava | 2024:DHC:2698 | WATERSHED SEP — substantial damages |
8 | Comviva Technologies | 2024 Del | Fintech technical features |
9 | Google v. Controller | 2 April 2024 Del | Software patent grant |
10 | Ab Initio Technology | 2024:DHC:5708 | Blockchain technical effect |
11 | Blackberry v. Asst Controller | 2024:DHC:6571 | CRI examination standards |
12 | ANI Media v. OpenAI | CS(COMM) 1028/2024 | WATERSHED AI-copyright; reserved 2025 |
13 | Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office | Del HC 2025 | AI authorship; 8-week directive |
14 | "Raghav" AI artwork | 2021 | Indian Copyright Office reversal |
15 | Hermès v. Rothschild ("MetaBirkins") | 2023 USA | $133K NFT trademark |
16 | BAYC v. Ryder Ripps | 2023 USA | $1.6M+ NFT trademark |
17 | Nike v. StockX | 2022 USA | NFT-physical product |
18 | Thaler v. Vidal (Federal Circuit) | 2022 USA | AI inventor rejected |
19 | Thaler v. Comptroller-General | 2023 UK SC | UK Supreme Court AI inventor rejected |
20 | Andersen v. Stability AI | Ongoing USA | AI training pioneer case |
21 | Authors Guild v. OpenAI | Ongoing USA | Author class action AI training |
22 | Bartz v. Anthropic | Ongoing USA | AI training litigation |
23 | Waymo v. Uber | 2018 USA | $245M self-driving trade secret |
24 | TCS v. CSC | 2024 Texas | $210M trade secret |
25 | CRI Guidelines 2025 | 29 July 2025 | Comprehensive examination framework |
9. Key Doctrines from the Case Law
✅ Eight key doctrines from emerging tech IP cases 1. Technical Effect Test (Ferid Allani) — Software requires technical contribution, effect, and advancement to be patentable. 2. Business Method Absolute Bar (OpenTV) — India does NOT permit technically implemented business methods, unlike UK/EU. 3. Blockchain Specificity (Ab Initio) — Theoretical distributed ledger NOT patentable; concrete implementation MAY be. 4. Seven-Step Novelty Test (Ericsson v. Lava) — Standard methodology adopted in CRI Guidelines 2025. 5. AI as Inventor — Rejected globally (Thaler in US, UK, EU, India). 6. AI Training as Fair Use — Pending in ANI v. OpenAI; key question for Section 52. 7. Computer-Generated Work Authorship — Section 2(d)(vi) "person who causes" — pending Thaler. 8. NFT Trademark Application — Real-world trademark law applies (Hermès). |
10. Reform Trends from the Case Law
✅ Reform trends and emerging directions · Specialized AI Copyright Framework — Expert panel May 2025; Chapter XII-A possible. · Updated Section 52 Fair Dealing — TDM exception consideration; EU AI Act influence. · CRI Guidelines 2025 Implementation — New examination standards from 29 July 2025. · FRAND Royalty Methodology — Indian courts developing sophisticated frameworks. · NFT and Cryptocurrency Regulation — Specific framework pending. · 3D Printing Enforcement — Targeting CAD file marketplaces. · Open Source Compliance — Growing enforcement. · Cross-Border Coordination — International FRAND and AI cases. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 94
|