📍 Indian Pharma Market | Post-Patent Trends | Anti-Diabetic Segment 📖 3-min read The Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) posted a healthy 7.8% growth in April 2025, driven by new launches and price hikes—especially in chronic segments like anti-diabetics. A key driver? The patent expiry of Empagliflozin, which opened the floodgates for generic competition. Empagliflozin Brand Landscape Explodes Post-Patent In just a few months, the number of Empagliflozin brands shot up from 86 to 147, with over 37 companies entering the market. While value growth was flat, volume surged 10%, making the treatment more accessible and affordable. Combination Type Brands (Apr ’25) Companies (Apr ’25) Empagliflozin (Plain) 36 32 Empagliflozin + Linagliptin 40 31 Empagliflozin + Metformin 37 29 Empagliflozin + Sitagliptin 28 18 Empagliflozin + Linagliptin + Metformin 7 5   IPVentra Insight: This case is a textbook example of what happens after patent cliffs in pharma. Once monopoly rights expire, the generic rush accelerates both market penetration and affordability—but also increases trademark, formulation, and regulatory complexity.

📍 Policy | Patent Law | Section 3(d) & 3(b) 📖 2-min read   In a strong statement on patent policy, Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal has criticized attempts by certain pharmaceutical firms to seek extended monopoly rights through minor incremental innovations, calling the practice “unethical” and detrimental to global healthcare access.   Speaking at a public event, Goyal remarked: “Just for the supernatural profits of a few companies, the world is deprived of equitable healthcare. We are urged to allow patent extensions through minor changes, but such evergreening undermines affordability and public interest.” India’s patent law, particularly Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, restricts patents for new forms of known substances unless they show enhanced efficacy. Similarly, Section 3(b) prohibits patents that are against public health or morality.   IPVentra’s Insight: This development reaffirms India’s position as a global advocate for accessible and affordable medicines. It also signals the need for IP strategy to be innovation-led, not loophole-driven. Companies must focus on true therapeutic advancement rather than procedural extensions.

📍 Delhi High Court | Trademark Infringement | Section 29(4) 📖 4-min read   The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is facing a trademark infringement suit for naming its AI-powered robotic dog “Champak” — a name identical to the well-known children’s magazine published by Delhi Press Patra Prakashan. While the Delhi High Court has issued notice, media reports suggest the plaintiff may have overlooked the application of Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 — a potentially critical omission. This section deals with unauthorized use of a well-known mark on dissimilar goods, provided the mark enjoys a reputation in India and the use causes detriment or unfair advantage.   Key Points of the Dispute: “Champak” is a registered trademark under Class 41 (publication services). BCCI claims the robot dog’s name was chosen through a public online poll. The plaintiff alleges trademark dilution, misuse for commercial advantage, and reputational harm. However, court observations reportedly note lack of evidence on commercial misuse, and more importantly, no specific pleadings under Section 29(4) — a major strategic gap.   IPVentra’s Insight: This case highlights how enforcement of trademark rights requires precise legal framing, especially when the dispute involves non-competing goods or services. Failing to invoke the correct statutory provisions — even with a strong brand — may severely weaken a claim