IPR
Topic 108 Landmark Intersections Cases
Topic 108 — Landmark IP Intersections Cases Compendium
This concluding topic of Module 11 consolidates the landmark cases shaping IP intersections jurisprudence — across competition law, constitutional law, public health, data privacy, labour law, and taxation. These cases illustrate how Indian courts and regulators continuously rebalance competing values: innovation incentives vs. competition; exclusive rights vs. fundamental rights; patent monopolies vs. right to health; IP enforcement vs. data privacy; employer IP ownership vs. employee mobility; royalty taxation vs. business income; international obligations vs. national flexibility. The compendium consolidates 25 landmark cases across enforcement themes with detailed dissections, citations, and significance analysis. Recent 2024-2025 cases — Telefonaktiebolaget v. Lava (Del HC 2024:DHC:2698) substantial SEP damages; CCI v. Ericsson + Monsanto SLP (March 2024) pending Supreme Court resolution; ANI Media v. OpenAI (judgment reserved 2025); Arjan Dugal v. Shubham Gandhi (Del HC 2025) combined trade secret + design + copyright; Empagliflozin (HP HC 30 May 2024) credible challenge framework — demonstrate the dynamic operational vigour of the post-2021 framework. This master cases compendium is essential exam preparation reference. For deep judiciary exam preparation, master these cases — they form the operational vocabulary of IP intersections jurisprudence in India.
1. Master Cases Compendium — 25 Landmark Cases
No. | Case | Citation | Intersection |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | Novartis AG v. Union of India | AIR 2013 SC 1311; (2013) 6 SCC 1 | IP + Constitutional + Public Health + TRIPS |
2 | Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma | Patent Office 9 March 2012; IPAB 4 March 2013 | IP + Constitutional + Public Health |
3 | Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI | AIR 2017 SC 4161; (2017) 10 SCC 1 | IP + Privacy + Constitutional |
4 | Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. CCI | W.P(C) No. 464 of 2014 (Del HC 30 March 2016) | IP + Competition Law |
5 | Monsanto Holdings v. CCI | May 2020 (Del HC) | IP + Competition Law |
6 | CCI v. Ericsson + Monsanto SLP | Supreme Court (March 2024) | IP + Competition (Pending) |
7 | Telefonaktiebolaget v. Lava | 2024:DHC:2698 | IP + Competition + International FRAND |
8 | CCI v. Ericsson Series (Intex/Micromax/iBall/Karbonn/Xiaomi) | 2014-2015 (Del HC + CCI) | IP + Competition (SEP/FRAND) |
9 | Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning | AIR 1967 SC 1098 | IP + Labour Law |
10 | Superintendence Co. v. Krishna Murgai | AIR 1981 SC 1717 | IP + Labour Law |
11 | Diljeet Titus v. Alfred Adebare | 2006 (32) PTC 609 (Del) | IP + Labour Law |
12 | American Express Bank v. Priya Puri | 2006 SCC OnLine Del 638 | IP + Labour Law + Confidentiality |
13 | Arjan Dugal v. Shubham Gandhi | 2025 (Del HC) | IP + Labour + Trade Secret + Design + Copyright |
14 | Engineering Analysis Centre v. CIT | AIR 2021 SC 1394; (2022) 3 SCC 321 | IP + Taxation + DTAA |
15 | Shreya Singhal v. UoI | AIR 2015 SC 1523 | IP + Free Speech + Internet |
16 | Myspace v. Super Cassettes Industries | 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382 | IP + Free Speech + Internet |
17 | Christian Louboutin v. Nakul Bajaj | 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215 | IP + E-commerce + Free Speech |
18 | UTV Software v. 1337X.to | 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002 | IP + Online Enforcement |
19 | ANI Media v. OpenAI | CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (Del HC) | IP + AI + Privacy + Free Speech |
20 | Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office | 2025 (Del HC) | IP + AI Authorship |
21 | Roche v. Cipla | 2009 (40) PTC 75 (Del) | IP + Public Health + Patent Enforcement |
22 | Empagliflozin patent case | HP HC 30 May 2024 | IP + Constitutional + Public Health |
23 | FX Enterprise Solutions v. Hyundai Motor | 2017 (CCI) | IP + Competition + Section 3(5) |
24 | Lee Pharma v. AstraZeneca (Saxagliptin) | 2015 (Patent Office Refused) | IP + Public Health + Compulsory Licensing |
25 | Justickets v. BookMyShow | 2017 (CCI + Del HC) | IP + Competition + Database Rights |
2. Detailed Case Analyses — Constitutional + Public Health
📖 Novartis AG v. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 1311; (2013) 6 SCC 1 Facts — Novartis applied for patent on beta-crystalline form of Imatinib mesylate (Glivec) — leukemia treatment. India's Patents Act amended 2005 introduced Section 3(d) anti-evergreening provision. Section 3(d) — Mere discovery of new form of known substance not patentable unless it differs significantly in efficacy. Issues — (i) Whether Section 3(d) violates Article 14? (ii) Whether Section 3(d) complies with TRIPS? (iii) Whether Glivec's beta-crystalline form satisfies "enhanced efficacy"? Holdings — Supreme Court (1 April 2013): (i) Section 3(d) constitutional; not arbitrary or vague. (ii) Section 3(d) within TRIPS flexibilities (Article 27). (iii) "Enhanced efficacy" must be THERAPEUTIC efficacy, not bioavailability. (iv) Glivec beta-crystalline form fails enhanced efficacy test. (v) Patent rejected. Significance — LANDMARK constitutional + TRIPS jurisprudence: · Section 3(d) anti-evergreening upheld. · Therapeutic efficacy as patentability test. · Public health considerations within TRIPS flexibilities. · Generic competition preserved for life-saving medicines. · Foundational for Indian pharmaceutical IP framework. |
📖 Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation, 9 March 2012 (Patent Office); IPAB 4 March 2013 Facts — Bayer Corporation held Indian patent for Sorafenib (Nexavar) — kidney/liver cancer drug. Bayer's price ~₹2.8 lakh/month inaccessible. Natco applied for compulsory licence under Section 84. Section 84 Application — Three grounds satisfied: (a) Reasonable requirements of public not satisfied (only 2% of eligible patients reached). (b) Not available at reasonably affordable price. (c) Not worked in India. Patent Office (March 2012) — Compulsory licence GRANTED to Natco; royalty 6% on net sales; Natco price ~₹8,800/month. IPAB Appeal (March 2013) — Compulsory licence affirmed. Bombay HC + Supreme Court — Final affirmation. Significance — INDIA'S FIRST AND ONLY COMPULSORY LICENCE: · Section 84 framework operational. · TRIPS flexibilities demonstrated. · Affordability + working grounds. · Article 21 + Article 47 integration. · Foundational for future compulsory licensing. |
3. Detailed Case Analyses — Competition Law + IP
📖 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. CCI, W.P(C) No. 464 of 2014 (Del HC 30 March 2016) Facts — Ericsson challenged CCI jurisdiction over patent licensing disputes; argued Patents Act is special law for patent matters. Holding — Delhi HC: (i) CCI has jurisdiction over IP-related abuse of dominance. (ii) Patents Act and Competition Act CAN coexist. (iii) "If irreconcilable differences between Patents Act and Competition Act in so far as anti-abuse provisions are concerned, the Patents Act being special Act shall prevail." Significance — Foundational decision on IP-Competition jurisdiction. Established complementary framework. Subject of pending Supreme Court SLP 2024. |
📖 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International, 2024:DHC:2698 Facts — Ericsson held SEPs for mobile telecommunications standards; Lava manufactured handsets using these standards. Holding — Delhi HC (2024:DHC:2698): (i) FRAND obligations binding. (ii) Substantial damages awarded. (iii) Seven-step novelty analysis framework for SEP litigation. (iv) Patent holder entitled to reasonable royalty. (v) Implementer must respect SEP framework. Significance — WATERSHED Indian SEP/FRAND litigation. Major case for IP-Competition intersection. Foundation for future SEP cases. |
4. Detailed Case Analyses — Privacy + IP
📖 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI, AIR 2017 SC 4161; (2017) 10 SCC 1 Background — 9-judge Constitution Bench. Question of whether right to privacy is a fundamental right. Holding — Supreme Court (24 August 2017): Right to privacy is FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT under Article 21. Pronouncement — Privacy is "intrinsic to liberty and dignity"; "right to be let alone" recognized as part of Constitution. Significance — Foundational privacy decision: · Right to privacy elevated to fundamental status. · Article 21 broader interpretation. · State must respect privacy. · Foundation for DPDP Act 2023. · Affects IP enforcement involving personal data. |
5. Detailed Case Analyses — Labour + IP
📖 Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning, AIR 1967 SC 1098 Facts — Restrictive covenants during employment in textile industry. Holding — Supreme Court: Restrictions DURING employment generally valid; reasonable scope. Significance — Foundational case for in-employment restrictions. Reasonable scope test. |
📖 Superintendence Co. of India v. Krishna Murgai, AIR 1981 SC 1717 Facts — Post-employment non-compete clause challenged. Holding — Supreme Court: Post-employment non-compete generally INVALID under Section 27 ICA 1872. Significance — Strict Indian approach to post-employment restrictions. Different from Anglo-American jurisprudence. |
📖 Arjan Dugal & Anr. v. Shubham Gandhi & Anr., 2025 (Del HC) Facts — Plaintiffs alleged former employee misappropriated proprietary design techniques, methodologies, and database of nearly 6,000 clients. Combined Claims — Trade secret + copyright + design infringement. Holding — Delhi HC granted EX PARTE AD INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining defendants from manufacturing, selling, or marketing garments alleged to infringe plaintiffs' works. Significance — Recent (2025) demonstration of: · Combined trade secret + copyright + design protection during employee mobility. · Court protects against employee mobility creating immediate competitive harm. · Customer database privacy + IP issues. · DPDP Act considerations. |
6. Detailed Case Analyses — Tax + IP
📖 Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence v. CIT, AIR 2021 SC 1394; (2022) 3 SCC 321 Background — Indian companies imported standard software from non-residents; sought DTAA exemption from royalty taxation. Issue — Whether software payments constitute "royalty" under DTAAs. Holding — Supreme Court (2 March 2021): (i) Standard software payments NOT royalty under DTAAs. (ii) Software is "copyrighted article", not "use of copyright". (iii) Distinction between use of copyrighted item vs. licensing of copyright itself. (iv) DTAAs prevail over domestic law where favourable. Significance — LANDMARK royalty taxation decision. Major impact on IT industry. Subsequent litigation refined. |
7. Detailed Case Analyses — Free Speech + IP
📖 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523 Background — Petitioners challenged constitutionality of Sections 66A IT Act and 79 IT Act framework. Holding — Supreme Court: (i) Struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional (chilling effect on free speech). (ii) READ DOWN Section 79(3)(b) — "actual knowledge" requires court order or government notification, NOT mere notice from private parties. (iii) Established higher threshold for safe harbour loss. Significance — Foundational Indian intermediary liability case: · Mere private complaint INSUFFICIENT for actual knowledge. · Court order or government notification REQUIRED. · Higher protection for intermediaries. · Affects IP enforcement — court orders required for proper takedown. |
8. Detailed Case Analyses — AI + Privacy + Copyright
📖 ANI Media (P) Ltd. v. Open AI Inc., CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (Del HC) Background — ANI sued OpenAI for using copyrighted news content to train ChatGPT. Status — Judgment reserved 2025. Issues — Multiple intersections: · Copyright: AI training as infringement. · Privacy: Training data contains personal data. · Free speech: Section 52 fair dealing. · Cross-border jurisdiction. · DPDP Act application. Significance — Pending decision will define multiple intersections: · IP + Privacy. · IP + AI. · IP + Free speech. · IP + International. |
9. Memory Aid — Intersection Quick Reference
✅ Quick Recall — Intersections by Theme IP + COMPETITION: Section 3(5) "reasonable conditions"; Telefonaktiebolaget v. CCI 2016; CCI v. Ericsson + Monsanto SLP 2024. IP + CONSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC HEALTH: Article 21 right to health; Section 84 compulsory licensing; Bayer v. Natco 2012; Novartis 2013. IP + PRIVACY: Article 21; Puttaswamy 2017; DPDP Act 2023; Section 79 IT Act + Shreya Singhal 2015. IP + LABOUR: Section 17(c) Copyright Act employer ownership; Section 27 ICA non-compete framework; Niranjan Shankar 1967, Krishna Murgai 1981, Arjan Dugal 2025. IP + TAXATION: Section 9(1)(vi) royalty; Section 115BBF patent box; Engineering Analysis 2021; DTAAs. IP + AI: ANI v. OpenAI 2024 (pending); Stephen Thaler 2025; CRI Guidelines 2025. |
10. Strategic Cross-Reference
Intersection Need | Key Cases |
|---|---|
Pharmaceutical patent challenge | Novartis 2013; Bayer v. Natco 2012; Lee Pharma 2015. |
SEP/FRAND framework | CCI v. Ericsson 2014-15; Telefonaktiebolaget v. Lava 2024; CCI SLP 2024. |
Online IP + Privacy | Puttaswamy 2017; Shreya Singhal 2015; ANI v. OpenAI 2024. |
Intermediary liability framework | Shreya Singhal 2015; Myspace 2016; Christian Louboutin 2018. |
Employee mobility + IP | Niranjan Shankar 1967; Krishna Murgai 1981; Arjan Dugal 2025. |
Software royalty taxation | Engineering Analysis 2021. |
CCI jurisdiction over IP | Telefonaktiebolaget v. CCI 2016; Monsanto v. CCI 2020; SLP 2024. |
AI training IP framework | ANI v. OpenAI 2024 (pending); Stephen Thaler 2025. |
Right to health | Article 21 + Bayer 2012 + Novartis 2013. |
Trade secret + employment | Arjan Dugal 2025; American Express 2006; Diljeet Titus 2006. |
Database rights + competition | Justickets v. BookMyShow 2017. |
Compulsory licensing | Bayer v. Natco 2012 (only successful); Section 84 Patents Act. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 108
|