IPR Amicus, July 2026

Click the 'View PDF' option above to read the full Amicus

Article

Understanding SHANTI Act, 2025 – Analysis for patent applicants

By Supriya Ramacha and Dr. Malathi Lakshmikumaran

With the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 (‘SHANTI Act’), having received the assent of the President of India on 20 December 2025, India has, to some extent, opened the gates to patenting of innovation in the nuclear energy sector. The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses Section 38 of the SHANTI Act which also substitutes Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970 (from a date to be notified), thus allowing grant of patents for inventions that are for ‘peaceful uses of nuclear energy and radiation’. The authors, however, note that for inventions, where the Controller is uncertain if it falls under Section 3(5) of the SHANTI Act, is sensitive in nature, or has national security implications, the patent application may be referred to the Department of Atomic Energy for directions. Pointing out few issues in the changes, like disclosure to DAE, exclusions from patentability, scope of ‘peaceful use’, etc., the authors observe that the SHANTI Act makes way for various therapeutic and diagnostic technologies involving nuclear energy and radiation to progress the patent process undeterred.

Ratio decidendi

·         Patents – Complete specification can be filed within 12 months from post-dated date of submission of provisional specification – Madras High Court

·         Patents – Unsubstantiated ‘common general knowledge’ cannot justify patent refusal – Bombay High Court

·         Trademarks – Timeline under Rule 45 for filing evidence by opponent/rectification-applicant is not mandatory – Bombay High Court

·         Pre-institution mediation when mandatory for counterclaims in pending commercial suit – Delhi High Court

·         Patents – Use of bio-material – Approval by National Bio-diversity Authority does not preclude Patent Office to raise objection of patentability under Section 3(p) – Delhi High Court

News Nuggets

·         Trademarks – ‘Shakti Bhog’ and ‘10X Shakti’ are prima facie deceptively similar

·         Patents – Nonsatisfaction of disclosure requirements, and adequate notice of objections

·         Patents – Controller not bound by Opposition Board’s recommendations, but duty bound to consider them

·         Trademarks – Prior registration not necessary to recognize mark as ‘well-known’; registration however deemed after such recognition

·         Trademark Registrar is a Court subordinate to the High Court for purposes of Section 24 of CPC

·         US Supreme Court takes up ‘Mtn Dew Rise’ trademark dispute

·         French fashion major’s court victory against Chinese tea chain stirs up a debate over copyrights