YIP Note
Download
A short roundup of intellectual property developments from the last few weeks that matter in day-to-day practice. Each item gives the gist and why it matters, with links to the reports. Orders at the interim stage are prima facie views, not final decisions, so read the full text before relying on any of them.
AI training and copyright: ANI v. OpenAI goes to a Division Bench
In July 2026 a single judge of the Delhi High Court reportedly declined ANI's request for an interim injunction against OpenAI. As reported, the court took the prima facie view that using news content to train a language model falls within fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and found no substantial similarity between the outputs placed before it and ANI's articles. It also reportedly held that Indian courts can hear the dispute even though training took place on servers abroad, because the works were accessed from India.
ANI has appealed. In September 2026 a Division Bench reportedly issued notice and listed the appeal for December.
Why it matters: this is the first reasoned Indian view on AI training, and on jurisdiction over training done abroad. Until the Division Bench rules, a plaintiff in an AI case should expect to have to show actual copying in the outputs, not just use in training.
Reports: Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas blog, Business Standard on the appeal, CMS AI case tracker.
Personality rights: Delhi High Court to settle the limits
The Delhi High Court has reportedly grouped three celebrity personality-rights suits, by Vivek Anand Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan, to be heard together so that the scope and limits of personality rights can be decided once and then applied to other pending suits. Amici curiae have been appointed. Reported questions include whether defamation or fake news can be treated as an intellectual property violation.
In a separate suit by actor Meenakshi Chaudhary, the court reportedly limited interim relief to obscene and sexually explicit content, and declined a wider order without evidence that the defendants were exploiting her persona commercially.
Why it matters: sweeping ex parte orders protecting every aspect of a celebrity's persona may give way to narrower relief. Plead and prove commercial misuse, category by category.
Reports: Bar & Bench, LiveLaw, SpicyIP commentary.
Deepfakes and chatbot personas: Bombay High Court protects Shruti Haasan
In early September 2026 the Bombay High Court reportedly granted actor Shruti Haasan interim relief against AI deepfakes, voice imitations, merchandise and AI chatbot profiles impersonating her, and ordered the content taken down. As reported, the court found a strong prima facie case and noted that deepfake content, once spread, can be copied endlessly.
Why it matters: relief now reaches chatbot "personas" of a performer, not just doctored images. Read it alongside the Delhi High Court's more cautious approach above.
Reports: Bar & Bench, LiveLaw.
Patents: a step-by-step test for "mental act" objections
In T-Mobile International v. Controller General of Patents (August 2026), the Delhi High Court reportedly set out a structured test for objections under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, which excludes mere mental acts. As reported, the inquiry looks only at what the claim covers, read with the specification. It is separate from novelty and inventive step, and the key question is whether the claim could be infringed by someone doing nothing but thinking, calculating or deciding.
Why it matters: a ready framework for replying to 3(m) objections on software, telecom and AI method claims.
Reports: Verdictum, Anand and Anand, Patents Rewind.
Music on hotel-room televisions: Supreme Court stays the Calcutta ruling
In August 2026 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reportedly held, in an appeal by IPRS, that providing cable television in hotel rooms is a "communication to the public" needing the hotel's own licence, even if guests pay nothing extra. Later that month the Supreme Court reportedly issued notice on the hotel's appeal and stayed the High Court's judgment.
Why it matters: hotels and hospitality clients face royalty demands on this point. For now the stay holds, until the Supreme Court decides.
Reports: Bar & Bench, High Court, Bar & Bench, Supreme Court.
Draft manuals and guidelines from the IP Office
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks reportedly published, for comments, a draft Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure, a revised draft Manual of Trade Marks Practice and Procedure, and draft guidelines for examining pharmaceutical and biotechnology patent applications. The comment periods were short, and drafts do not change the law until they are finalised.
Why it matters: these will shape examination reports. Watch for the final versions.
Reports: SpicyIP on the manuals, SpicyIP on the pharma and biotech guidelines.