Every so often, a court decision quietly redraws the boundaries of an entire discipline. The Delhi High Court's decision by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora in Geron Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs¹ is one such ruling for Indian patent law and practice.

Section 3(i) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, which aims to prevent monopolies over medical practices, has long been a puzzle for innovators in the field of biotechnology and related disciplines. In the last few years, the Delhi and Madras High Courts have delivered a series of path-breaking judgments interpreting this provision in the context of cutting-edge biotechnology and related inventions.

In the Geron case, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered a clear decision that claim language cannot override the function of the invention. Such cases illustrate how Indian courts have moved from a narrow "in-vivo-only" reading to a functional test.

Geron Corporation (Appellant), a U.S.-based large-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company, filed Indian Patent Application No. 4506/DELNP/2015, claiming an in vitro screening method that measures telomere length in cancer cells to identify patients who might respond to telomerase inhibitor therapy. If the telomere length falls at or below the 50^th percentile of a known standard, the individual is selected for telomerase inhibitor treatment.

However, the Controller of Patents rejected the patent application as non-patentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, characterising it as a diagnostic method rather than a screening method.

Geron Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117-A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 and argued that the claimed invention is merely a screening tool applied after diagnosis — not a diagnostic method — since the patient is already diagnosed with cancer and the method only helps decide treatment eligibility.

The Court upheld the Controller's decision of refusal of the Patent Application.

As per Section 3(i) of the Indian Patents Act, "any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic, diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment of human beings or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products" does not constitute an invention.

Further, diagnostic methods are specifically excluded from patentability as per the Guidelines for Examination of Biotechnology Applications for Patent issued by the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks.

The Guidelines indicate that biomarker-based monitoring of drug response in a patient is considered a diagnostic method and is therefore barred under Section 3(i). Furthermore, the distinction between 'screening' and 'diagnosis' is not determinative — screening tests can be 'diagnostic' if they identify a disease or condition for treatment.

Section 3(i) specifically targets the processes employed by medical practitioners, paramedical staff, and nurses and excludes them from patentability, reflecting a policy against monopolising treatment methods.

Crucially, the fate of an Indian Patent application is decided under national law. Reliance on the grant of a patent in a foreign jurisdiction like the USA or Europe carries no merit in the context of an Indian Patent.

Reliance was also placed on Chinese University of Hong Kong v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs² and Natera Inc. & Anr. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs³. The same Bench in Sequenom Inc & Anr. v. The Controller of Patents⁴ further clarified that any technique helping a physician determine a course of medical treatment falls under the statutory bar for diagnostic processes.

Upon detailed examination, the Delhi High Court observed that the exclusion under Section 3(i) must be interpreted purposively — not narrowly. The Court emphasised that the term "diagnostic" cannot be confined merely to the identification of a disease, but must extend to processes that play a substantial role in helping determine the course of medical treatment, including those that guide or influence treatment choices.

The Court rejected the Appellant's attempt to distinguish the claimed invention as a mere "screening" method, holding that the patentability test in such cases lies in the functional outcome of the process. The impugned application involved obtaining a biological sample, measuring telomere length, comparing the results with a defined threshold, and using this information to determine whether a patient would benefit from a specific treatment — which the Court held constitutes an integral part of the diagnostic process directly related to therapeutic decisions.

The Court further clarified that the exclusion under Section 3(i) is not limited to in vivo processes — in vitro processes can equally fall within its ambit if they contribute to diagnosis or treatment. It also observed that smart claim drafting cannot exclude inventions performing functions of "diagnosis" or "treatment" from falling under Section 3(i). Mere labelling of a diagnostic process as "screening" cannot disguise what is fundamentally a diagnostic method guiding therapy selection.

The Delhi High Court's decision in Geron Corporation reinforces India's consistent position that methods influencing medical treatment decisions remain outside patent protection, regardless of clever drafting strategies. It gives a clear message: patent law must serve public health, not commercial cleverness. If the process helps a doctor decide how to treat a patient, it is diagnostic in substance — regardless of whether it happens in vivo or in vitro.

The Court emphasised that claim language cannot override the function of the invention and that clever drafting techniques cannot disguise the true nature of an invention.

People are often willing to spend lakhs building a Startup but hesitate when it comes to protecting the very idea that gives that startup value.

That hesitation is understandable, but it is also expensive.

Many founders still assume that Intellectual Property protection is complicated, expensive, or meant only for large companies. But when you look at the official fee structure for protection of Intellectual Property (IP) in India, the picture is very different.

In reality, India’s IP fee structure is designed to make protection more accessible to individual inventors, Startups, MSMEs and Educational Institutions. India’s IP policy is also evolving to support sector-specific innovation. For example, Union Minister of Commerce and Industry Shri Piyush Goyal recently announced a three-year waiver of official IP registration fees for sports-related filings, covering Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Designs, Traditional Knowledge, and Geographical Indications, to encourage sports innovation and commercialization.

This is an important signal because it shows that IP policy is not only about protection after innovation happens, but it is also about creating the right conditions for entire ecosystems to grow.

When a business is in its early stages, every rupee matters. Founders carefully budget for product development, branding, marketing, and operations, but legal protection is often pushed to the side because it is seen as a “later” expense.

That is where the mistake actually happens. Businesses budget for growth, but not for IP ownership. A Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Design, or GI Registration is not just paperwork. It is a legal and commercial asset that can define ownership, build market advantage, and strengthen long-term value.

If the core of your business is a technical solution, a process, a product, or a scientific development, patent protection deserves serious attention.

In India, the basic e-filing fee for a patent application is Rs 1,600/- for an individual, Startup, MSME, or Educational Institution, for up to 30 pages and 10 claims. For a large entity, the same filing costs Rs 8,000/-.

Additional pages and claims attract extra fees, which makes drafting strategy relevant not only from a legal point of view, but also from a cost perspective. There are also separate fees for key procedural steps such as early publication, examination and expedited examination.

This structure shows that the system is built to encourage filings, while still allowing applicants to choose the pace and route that best fits their needs.

If a patent protects the invention, a Trademark protects the identity of the business. For startups, this is often one of the first and most practical IP filings that should be considered.

In India, the official e-filing fee for a trademark application per class is Rs 4,500/- for an individual, Startup, or MSME, and Rs 9,000/- for other applicants such as companies.

Trademark opposition notices also have a defined official fee, which means brand protection is both accessible and structured.

This matters because many businesses underestimate how quickly a brand becomes valuable. A strong trademark does not just distinguish goods and services; it also builds trust, reputation, and recall in the market. A strong trademark often becomes one of the most visible assets of a growing company.

Copyright is often misunderstood because many people assume that once a work is created, that is enough. While copyright can arise automatically in many cases, registration still strengthens proof of ownership and helps in enforcement.

In India, the official fee for a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work is Rs 500/-, while a cinematograph film costs Rs 5,000/- and a sound recording costs Rs 2,000/-.

This is particularly important for businesses that create content, software, design assets, training materials, visual assets, videos, or written publications etc. In a digital economy, creative output is not just content. It is commercial value.

Design registration protects the visual appearance of products, which is especially valuable in consumer-driven markets where appearance influences buying decisions. The fee starts at around Rs 1,000/- for individuals and startups, making it one of the more accessible forms of IP protection.

Geographical Indication protection is equally important for region-specific products with a reputation linked to place of origin. GI filing fees generally start at about Rs 5,000/-, showing that the IP system also supports communities, producers, and local businesses, not just large corporate players.

The biggest barrier is often not cost or money associated with IP protection. It is awareness among people. Many founders delay IP protection because they think they are “too early”, “too small”, or “not yet ready”.

But the truth is that protection is usually most valuable at the beginning, when ownership is easiest to define and most important to secure. Sooner the protection strategy begins, the better the chances of avoiding copycats, disputes, and preventable loss of value of the intangible assets.

Affordable fee structure for protection of IP assets in India specially for startups and other eligible applicants sends a powerful message that innovation should not remain unprotected because of cost assumptions or misconception about affordability.

In fact, the real expense is rarely the filing fees, it is the misconception about filing fee. The real expense is losing ownership of a brand, invention, design, or creative work that could have been protected much earlier.

For founders, creators, and professionals, intellectual property should be seen as part of business strategy, not as a legal afterthought.

If you are building something original, one basic question that you should ask yourself:
1). Is only creating something original sufficient, or are you also protecting what you create, or you want to own it or not?
2). Means only creating new does not generally mean you own it, you have to protect it to own it
3). IP protection should be part of the strategy, not an afterthought
4). Because sometimes, the cost of protection is small, but the cost of not protecting can be very large.
5). Which IP right do you think Indian startups still underuse the most whether the Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights or Industrial Designs?

The 2026 World Cup is shaping up to be a massive event. We are talking games all over the US, Canada, and Mexico. Fans are losing their minds trying to get tickets. But while you are worrying about flight prices, FIFA is worrying about something else entirely. They are worried about their brand and in fact, they are ruthless about it. They have built a legal shield around this tournament that is practically impenetrable.

First off all, you have to know about the “Prohibited List”. It sounds like something out of a dystopian movie, but it is real. FIFA releases a list of words that normal businesses are absolutely not allowed to use. It is not just the logo. You cannot use phrases like “United 2026” or even “Road to the Final” in your ads. If a local bar puts “World Cup 2026” on their sandwich board, they might get a cease and desist letter. It creates a silence where only the big sponsors can speak. It is aggressive but it works.

Then, there is the trademark game. Most companies trademark their specific product. Nike trademarks shoes. FIFA trademarks everything. They file for rights in categories you would not even believe. They are talking about toiletries, toys, jewellery you name it. They do this so no one can try to sell “World Cup 2026” breakfast cereal or deodorant. They want total control over the image. By locking down these rights, they keep the brand exclusive and expensive.

The craziest part is how they handle the law. Trademark cases usually take forever. FIFA does not have time for that. They actually get the host countries to change the laws just for them. The US, Canada, and Mexico all agreed to special legislation for 2026. This lets customs officers seize fake merch at the border without a court order. It also creates “clean zones” around the stadiums where you cannot put up a billboard unless you paid FIFA. It is a level of power that is pretty insane.

And do not think you can hide online. FIFA has a massive digital army. They use software to scan the web 24/7 for fakes. If you are selling a fake jersey on a sketchy website or posting scams on Instagram, they will find you. The internet is full of people trying to cash in, so FIFA has to be faster. They want to make sure that when fans search for tickets, they do not get ripped off.

Look, if you strip everything away, this entire operation runs on Intellectual Property. That is the foundation. FIFA does not just organize games. They own the rights to everything surrounding them. That IP is what they are actually selling to sponsors. Companies pay billions for the exclusivity that only IP law can guarantee. If they could not enforce those rights, the brand would be worthless. Anyone could cash in. So those scary legal strategies and government changes? They are just tools to protect that IP. It is the invisible asset that holds the whole business model together.