Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 MARCH 2026

IPR Law Updates (February 2026)

Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Contributor
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners

Hammurabi & Solomon Partners

With over 100 members in India, Hammurabi & Solomon Partners (H&SP) is the pioneer in the realm of...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hammurabi & Solomon Partners

The Supreme Court held that the question whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can exercise jurisdiction over alleged anti-competitive conduct arising...

IndiaIntellectual Property
Hammurabi & Solomon
Hammurabi & Solomon

NOTABLE IPR JUDGMENTS FEBRUARY 2026

1. Competition Commission of India vs Swapan Dey & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 519/2026, Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court held that the question whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can exercise jurisdiction over alleged anti-competitive conduct arising from patent rights requires authoritative determination. It stayed the findings of the NCLAT which had held that such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Patents Act, thereby limiting CCI's jurisdiction. 

This case arose from a complaint filed by Swapan Dey, CEO of a hospital operating under the Pradhan Mantri National Dialysis Programme, concerning alleged anti competitive conduct by Vifor International AG in relation to Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM), a drug that was protected by patent. Dey alleged that Vifor's conduct in licensing, pricing and supply of FCM amounted to abuse of dominance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act. The CCI closed the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law
Article

From Consent To Accountability: Japan’s 2026 APPI Amendment Bill And The New Data Strategy For AI-Driven Businesses

AI regulation does not always arrive in the form of a dedicated AI statute. More often, it enters through privacy law. On April 7, 2026, the Japanese Cabinet approved a bill to amend Japan’s Act on the Protection of Personal Information (“APPI”). The Diet passed the amendment on July 10, 2026, and it was promulgated on July 17, 2026 as Act No. 56 of 2026; the amendment is now enacted but not yet in force, with its main provisions taking effect on a date to be fixed by Cabinet order no later than mid-2028.
IndiaPrivacy
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

A Sneak Peek Into A Historic Deal In The Entertainment Industry: How Paramount Beat Netflix For Warner Bros. – Lessons And Reforms For India

Chanakya, the ancient Indian strategist and author of the Arthashastra, taught that an opponent is overcome through four means: sama (persuasion), dana (inducement), bheda (division) and danda (force). The contest for Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) is a modern illustration of all four. Netflix made the first offer and signed a merger agreement with WBD, yet Paramount played each of its cards with care.
IndiaCorporate/Commercial Law
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

Telegram Ban In India – The Rise Of Digital Sovereignty

The Delhi High Court's landmark ruling in Telegram FZ LLC v. Union of India addresses whether Section 69A of the IT Act permits the government to block an entire platform rather than specific content. Following the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak scandal, where fraudulent channels circulated fake exam papers affecting millions of aspirants, the court upheld the Centre's power to impose a platform-wide ban on Telegram, sparking intense debate about the boundaries between examination integrity and digital censorship.
IndiaMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

Labour Law May (2026) Labour Law Updates And Judgments

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Haryana Government's 2014 notifications that sought to regularize ad hoc employees, addressing the critical question of whether regularization without public advertisement violates principles of fair employment. The judgment distinguishes between employees appointed against sanctioned posts with proper qualifications versus those regularized arbitrarily based on length of service alone.
IndiaEmployment and HR
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

Consumer Law Updates

The Supreme Court has delivered a pivotal judgment on banking liability under consumer protection law, examining whether banks can be held liable for deficiency in service when they fail to present deposited cheques within their validity period. This case arose from civil appeals filed by Canara Bank challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's ruling that found the bank guilty of service deficiency.
IndiaConsumer Protection
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners