Philips v. Indian Implementers
Court: Delhi High Court
In a significant 2025 ruling concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), the Delhi High Court reaffirmed India’s evolving and increasingly assertive stance on SEP enforcement, particularly at the interim injunction stage. The Court held that SEPs are fully enforceable in India even before final adjudication, provided the patentee is able to satisfy certain well-defined conditions grounded in fairness and equity under the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) framework.
What the Court Held
The Court clarified that a SEP holder seeking interim relief must demonstrate three essential elements. First, the prima facie validity of the SEP, including its essentiality to a notified standard, must be shown through technical mapping and documentary evidence. Second, the patentee must establish its willingness to license the SEP on FRAND terms, typically by showing prior licensing conduct, offers made to the implementer, or engagement in negotiations consistent with global FRAND practices. Third, and most critically, the patentee must demonstrate that the implementer has engaged in unwilling or evasive conduct, such as delaying negotiations, refusing to disclose sales data, or continuing to use the patented standard without securing a licence.
On the issue of royalties, the Court closely examined the implementer’s objections to the proposed royalty rates. It rejected bare or arbitrary challenges to royalty computation models, holding that an implementer cannot simply allege that royalties are excessive without placing counter-evidence, alternative models, or comparable licences on record. The Court emphasized that FRAND disputes are evidence-driven and cannot be reduced to speculative assertions.
Why This Judgment Is Important
This decision firmly positions India as a SEP-friendly and enforcement-oriented jurisdiction, aligning it with mature SEP forums such as the United Kingdom and Germany. The Court sent a clear signal that Indian courts will not condone “hold-out” strategies, where implementers delay or avoid licensing negotiations while continuing to benefit from standardized technology. Importantly, the Court clarified that FRAND is not a defence to infringement, but a framework to ensure equitable licensing. An implementer cannot invoke FRAND obligations to justify unlicensed use of patented technology.
The judgment also reflects a growing judicial understanding of complex telecom and digital standards, reinforcing confidence among global patentees that Indian courts are capable of handling technically intensive SEP disputes.
Strategic Impact
From a commercial and legal standpoint, the ruling has wide-ranging implications. Telecom, handset manufacturers, automotive connectivity providers, and IoT companies must now reassess their licensing exposure in India, particularly where India forms a substantial portion of device sales or network deployment. SEP owners, on the other hand, gain enhanced leverage to seek interim injunctions or court-determined interim royalty deposits where negotiations fail.
From a prosecution and portfolio perspective, the judgment underscores the importance of robust SEP drafting and prosecution strategy. Patent specifications and claim sets must clearly map claim elements to specific portions of the standard, enabling patentees to swiftly demonstrate essentiality in court. Overall, the decision marks a decisive step toward strengthening India’s role in the global SEP and FRAND enforcement ecosystem.
Software Patentability & Section 3(k) – Technical Effect Revisited
“In a series of decisions culminating in 2025, the Delhi High Court—building on Ferid Allani v. Union of India—reiterated that computer-related inventions are patentable only where a demonstrable technical effect or technical advancement is shown, and that mere business automation or data processing falls within the exclusion under Section 3(k).
Court: Delhi High Court
In a decisive 2025 ruling, the Delhi High Court once again revisited the contours of software patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, providing much-needed clarity on what constitutes a patentable computer-related invention in India. The judgment reinforces a consistent judicial position that algorithms, software, and computer programs per se are excluded from patentability, unless they demonstrably deliver a real technical effect or technical advancement beyond abstract computation or business logic.
Key Holding
The Court categorically reiterated that mere use of software, algorithms, or data processing techniques—even if complex, novel, or commercially valuable—does not by itself satisfy patent eligibility. In particular, the Court rejected arguments that:
- automation of known processes,
- optimization of workflows,
- rule-based decision engines, or
- data analytics and prediction models
amount to patentable subject matter merely because they are implemented using computers or advanced code. The Court emphasized that complexity of logic, scale of data, or sophistication of algorithms cannot substitute for technical contribution. What matters is not what the software does for the business, but what it does to the technology itself.
Doctrinal Clarification: Technical Effect vs Business Effect
A key contribution of this judgment lies in its clear doctrinal distinction between two often-conflated concepts:
Technical Effect / Technical Advancement – This refers to improvements at the level of the computer or technical system itself, such as:
- enhanced processing speed or reduced latency,
- improved memory utilization,
- better signal processing,
- reduced network load,
- improved hardware efficiency, or
- a new way of controlling or operating a technical system.
Business, Administrative, or Cognitive Effect – This includes outcomes such as:
- improved decision-making,
- better logistics planning,
- optimized resource allocation,
- automated compliance checks, or
- enhanced managerial efficiency.
The Court made it clear that only the former category can potentially escape the bar of Section 3(k). Improvements that merely make a business process faster, cheaper, or more accurate—without altering the underlying technical functioning of the system—remain non-patentable.
Strategic Impact on AI, ML, and Software-Driven Inventions
This judgment has far-reaching implications for AI/ML inventions, logistics platforms, fintech systems, and enterprise software, which form a significant portion of patent filings in India. Applicants can no longer rely on high-level descriptions of models, rules, or workflows. Instead, they must anchor their inventions in concrete technical architecture.
Practically, this means:
- Claims should be tied to system-level features, such as sensors, processors, memory structures, communication modules, or signal pipelines.
- Specifications must explain how the algorithm interacts with hardware or improves a technical process, not merely what output it generates.
- Over-reliance on “means + function” claim language, without disclosure of corresponding technical structures, is particularly risky in India.
Alignment with International Practice
Notably, the Court’s reasoning closely mirrors the European Patent Office’s “technical contribution” doctrine, under which an invention must solve a technical problem using technical means. By aligning Indian jurisprudence with EPO principles, the judgment enhances predictability for multinational applicants, while simultaneously maintaining India’s statutory exclusion of abstract software.
Overall, the decision signals that India remains open to genuine software-enabled technical innovation, but firmly closed to patents that merely computerize business ideas. For innovators, the message is clear: technology must improve technology—not just business outcomes—to be patentable in India.
Copyright in OTT & Streaming Content – Threshold Scrutiny Rejected
Court: Madras High Court
Case: Wunderbar Films Private Limited v. Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP (Madras High Court, 2024–2025)
In an important ruling impacting India’s fast-growing OTT and streaming ecosystem, the Madras High Court refused to dismiss a copyright infringement suit at the threshold stage filed by Wunderbar Films against Netflix India. The case arose from allegations of unauthorised use and exploitation of cinematographic content beyond the scope of contractual permissions. The decision has become a reference point in 2025 for how Indian courts approach licensing disputes involving digital platforms.
Holding of the Court
The Court categorically held that copyright licensing disputes are inherently factual in nature and cannot be summarily rejected at the initial stage merely on the basis of contractual assertions made by an OTT platform. Netflix had sought dismissal of the suit by arguing that it possessed valid licences and that the dispute was purely contractual. The Court rejected this contention, observing that the existence, scope, duration, and territorial extent of licences require detailed examination of evidence, including agreements, correspondence, and industry practice.
Significantly, the Court also ruled that OTT platforms cannot claim blanket immunity from copyright infringement actions simply because they operate as digital intermediaries or content distributors. Where a platform actively curates, distributes, monetises, or promotes content, it cannot evade judicial scrutiny by characterising itself as a passive conduit. The Court emphasised that such defences can only be tested after pleadings are completed and evidence is led.
By refusing to short-circuit the proceedings, the Court reaffirmed that copyright enforcement in the digital domain must proceed on substantive examination rather than procedural elimination.
Why This Judgment Is Important
This ruling reflects a broader judicial recognition that OTT platforms wield significant commercial and creative control over content exploitation. The Court acknowledged that the streaming ecosystem involves complex layers of rights copyright ownership, assignment, licensing, sublicensing, and territorial restrictions which cannot be resolved through summary disposal.
The judgment also sends a clear signal that copyright law applies with full force to digital and streaming platforms, just as it does to traditional broadcasters and distributors. The Court refused to dilute substantive rights of creators merely because the medium of exploitation is digital or global in nature.
Importantly, the ruling protects creators from being shut out at the threshold by large platforms relying on asymmetry of bargaining power or boilerplate contractual defences.
Impact on the OTT and Content Industry
From a strategic perspective, the judgment significantly strengthens the bargaining power of content creators, producers, and rights holders. It reassures them that Indian courts will not prematurely dismiss infringement claims and will allow creators to place their evidence on record.
For OTT platforms, the decision makes licensing diligence and compliance business-critical. Platforms must now:
- Ensure licences clearly define scope, media, territory, and duration;
- Maintain auditable documentation of rights clearance;
- Avoid over-exploitation beyond contractual limits.
The ruling also increases litigation risk for platforms that rely on aggressive or ambiguous licensing interpretations, particularly for regional, dubbed, or derivative content.
Broader Legal Significance
The Wunderbar Films v. Netflix decision aligns Indian jurisprudence with global trends where courts increasingly scrutinise platform responsibility in copyright exploitation. It reinforces that digital scale does not dilute legal accountability. Overall, the judgment marks a decisive step toward rebalancing power between creators and OTT platforms, ensuring that copyright protection evolves in step with digital distribution models rather than being undermined by them.