FOUNDATION OF IP ADJUDICATION:
Intellectual Property (IP) rights serve as fundamental elements that support innovation, economic growth, and market competitiveness. The exclusive rights provided to creators by IP laws motivate research investment, which, in turn, leads to development, technological progress, and market competitiveness. A growing number of IP-related disputes have emerged due to the speed of technological innovation and the expansion of the global marketplace. The current legal systems face difficulties in managing complex and numerous IP cases, which extend court proceedings and generate varying judicial results.
The Indian judicial system has established Specific Intellectual Property Divisions (IPDs), which operate within High Courts for modern IP litigation management.
This paper critiques whether the formation of IPDs can be treated as a formal step in the process of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the IP adjudication process or whether it is just a change in the form of bureaucracy without substantial substance. Further, it discusses issues such as the variation in regional decentralization of IPDs and possible deficits in judicial competencies that might compromise the effectiveness of the plan. Thus, these aspects offer the following broad objectives for the study: to systematically review the present state of IP adjudication in India and, based on that, make appropriate recommendations for enhancement.
EVOLUTION OF INDIA’S IP LEGAL LANDSCAPE:
The existing IP environment in India has changed over time and is in line with developments aimed at encouraging innovation. Initially, IP disputes were handled by civil and High Courts, which were slow and handled a large number of cases. This resulted in a lack of technical knowledge and numerous inconsistencies. To overcome these problems, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was constituted in 2003 as a quasi-judicial body for the disposal of appellate matters concerning patents, trademarks, and geographical indications. The abolition of the IPAB in April 2021, making way for the enactment of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021, brought a drastic shift in the tenor of IPR adjudication in India.
The IPAB, formed in 2003 as an appellate board specialized in IP matters, faced challenges such as the accumulation of numerous cases and several operational issues. To counter these challenges, some High Courts, such as the Delhi High Court, created specialized Intellectual Property Divisions (IPDs) for the determination of IP matters. This shift aimed for a more efficient resolution of IP disputes by utilizing the High Courts’ experience in handling such cases.
Data-Driven Transition:
Before the IPAB’s removal, it had accumulated a large number of cases, resulting in increased pendency and delays in resolving IP disputes. While the precise number of cases when the IPAB was decommissioned is not easily discernible, the backlogs were large enough to require systematic changes. After its abolition, the formulation of IPDs in High Courts aimed to solve these issues. For instance, some courts attained an average annual disposal rate of 2000 cases per judge, while others had fewer than 1000. This indicates that the implementation of IPDs may be effective in decreasing the pendency ratio, depending on the functioning of each High Court.
The decision to dissolve the IPAB and create the IPDs has received mixed reactions. Supporters claim that integrating IP adjudication within the High Courts is efficient due to the ‘existing judicial structures’ and avoids unnecessary bureaucracy. However, critics argue that it may overload the already congested High Courts, leading to delays in delivering IP dispute resolutions.
The creation of IPDs as subdivisions within the High Courts increases the efficiency of case management and their consideration as specialized; however, it may lead to simply shifting the problem rather than completely eradicating it. To a large extent, the success of this change hinges on the availability of sufficient resources, the use of dedicated training for judges adapting to this new way of functioning, and the incorporation of proper case management within the High Courts. Without these measures, the transition from the IPAB to the IPDs may not bring the desired improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of IP adjudication in India.
OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURAL INNOVATIONS:
The operational framework of the IPDs at the Indian High Court level is designed to provide timely, clear, and specialized processing of cases. These divisions are headed by judicial divisions formed specifically to deal with intellectual property rights issues and staffed by judges knowledgeable in intellectual property law. Since many issues in IP disputes are technical, the courts employ technical witnesses, amicus curiae, and/or special advocates during deliberation and determination, ensuring that both legal and technical aspects are considered. This strategy helps resolve complicated legal cases related to patents, trademarks, and copyrights with increased efficiency and comprehensiveness.
Judicial Efficiency and Technological Integration:
The transition has aimed to fast-track the disposition of cases and minimize congestion. Previously, IP disputes took years; trademark appeals took about five and a half years, and patent appeals took even longer, sometimes over a decade. After setting up IPDs, there have been appreciable improvements in the enhanced disposal of cases with separate benches for IPDs and the computerization of courts.
To increase efficiency, courts have adopted an automated tracking system for real-time case updates and filing. Additionally, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods like mediation and arbitration have aided in shortening the litigation time by about 15-20%.
Precedent-Based Rulings and AI-Powered Case Management:
IPDs implement the practice of deciding cases based on prior decisions, which leads to a decrease in the uncertainty of legal decisions. When analyzing India’s IPDs with the UK’s Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), it emerged that although India’s model is viable, efficiency varies by region.
To modernize judicial processes, AI-driven legal analytics are now being employed for case categorization and predictive judgment drafting, initially implemented in the Delhi and Madras High Courts.
Litigation Abuse Control and Digital Accessibility:
The introduction of pre-trial screening mechanisms has helped curb abusive litigation practices, eliminating frivolous lawsuits and forum shopping in nearly 18% of IP cases. Additionally, records from various cases have been digitized, allowing easy access for judges, parties involved in the case, and researchers.
This has been made possible through judicial specialization, technological development, and structured procedural changes, defining IPDs as a transformative force in India’s IP dispute resolution landscape within the global context.
FROM IPABs TO IPDs: HAS DISPUTE RESOLUTION IMPROVED?
Case Disposal Rates:
Before the functioning of the IPDs, the performance of the IPAB was very challenging, with an overwhelming caseload of over 3000 cases by 2020, some of which had taken over a decade to be heard. Trademark appeals, for instance, were said to take between 5 and 7 years, while patent appeals took up to 10 years.
This backlog seemed to have intensified after the dissolution of the IPAB in 2021, and the High Courts that established the IPDs. For instance, the IPD of the Delhi High Court received around 2,000 cases transferred from the erstwhile IPAB. Approximately 600 of them were dealt with within the year, with a disposal rate of 30% in the first year. This acceleration has been facilitated by the specially assigned benches within the High Courts and efficient case handling processes.
Case Study 1: Beverly Hills Polo Club Trademark Infringement
In February 2025, one of Amazon’s business arms was directed by the Delhi High Court to pay $39 million in damages for violating the “Beverly Hills Polo Club” (BHPC) brand. Amazon’s India website was selling garments that closely resembled the products manufactured by BHPC, violating trademark laws. This case demonstrates how the Delhi High Court’s IPD has strengthened brand protection in India. It is important within the context of e-commerce liability for IP matters, as it eliminates the tendency of online marketplaces to shift blame in cases like this. It also emphasizes the efficiency of the IPD in handling complicated trademark cases and demonstrates India’s commitment to following international norms.
Case Study 2: Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors.
In the Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors. case, the Delhi High Court’s IPD faced criticism for handling patentability issues concerning genetically modified cotton seeds. Monsanto had licensed its Bt cotton technology to Nuziveedu Seeds, but disputes over licensing fees led to litigation. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court declined to grant an interim injunction, emphasizing the need for a detailed trial to assess complex factual and legal questions. However, the Division Bench of the High Court summarily invalidated Monsanto’s patent under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, which excludes plants and animals from patentability. This decision was perceived as a misstep due to the lack of a comprehensive examination of technical evidence. Subsequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s ruling, emphasizing the necessity for a detailed trial to assess the patent’s validity, highlighting the IPD’s procedural oversight in this matter.
The creation of the IPDs in the High Courts has resulted in better and timely management of IP disputes, as evidenced by enhanced case clearance and resolution of new and complex cases like the BHPC trademark infringement. However, the Monsanto case also shows that deciding complex patent matters is challenging, and technical expertise is highly desirable within the IPDs. Although the transition from IPABs to IPDs represents a significant improvement over the past drawbacks, there remains a need for uniformity and knowledge integration in the different areas of IP across the country to further develop IPDs in India.
EMERGING ISSUES IN IPR AND CHALLENGES
Intellectual Property Divisions (IPDs) were established in Indian High Courts to streamline traditional IP disputes, but as technology races ahead, these courts are now grappling with uncharted legal territories. From AI inventorship battles to blockchain’s role in copyright enforcement and the pharmaceutical industry’s fight over patents, the question remains: Are IPDs ready for the future, or are they already outdated?
1. AI & Intellectual Property: Who Owns an AI’s Creations?
a) Should AI Hold Patents?
The concept is debatable around the globe and still pending in India to take side. Currently, the laws of the world, including the Indian laws on patents, insist on the presence of a human inventor, although artificial research is putting this into question. If IPDs reject AI patent applications, circulated innovation; if they allow them, they can rewrite many axial patent legislations. The real issue? IPDs do not have the benefit of jurisprudence concerning these rulings, making every AI-related decision a gamble. Because of this, there should be the involvement of specific AI boards or panels or independent expert amicus curiae to help IPs develop sound legal frameworks for patents related to AI items.[1]
b) Who Owns AI-Created Works?
As for the current legal situation, one should mention that the US Copyright Office is quite clear on this point, stating that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted. India, to the best of this article’s knowledge, has not made any comment on the subject. With AI music, paintings, and scripts in existence, who owns them? The programmer? The AI’s operator? No one at all? Because of this, Indian IPDs are handling this in a rather irrational fashion, thereby creating ambiguity in the legal framework that governs creators and technology companies. It creates rights piecemeal; it is an important judicial policy that has a preemptive role to play in the question of establishing ownership of AI-generated copyrights.[2]
2. Blockchain & IP Protection: Will IPDs Accept a Decentralized Legal System?
For instance, one can picture an artist who has placed a blockchain record into their song, which cannot be altered or duplicated. No theft, no forgery. Sounds revolutionary, right? However, even those Indian courts, including the IPDs, have not acknowledged blockchain as a form of acceptable evidence in IP cases. Why? As the previous sections have highlighted, judges and courts remain reluctant to accept blockchain-based claims, which are still written in a traditional format. But in the case of the Delhi High Court’s IPD, such legal statutes must be backed by legal cases performed by the Implementing Project Department, where blockchain can be accorded the status of primary evidence law that can bar legal formalities from undermining technological advancement.
Indian IPDs are now at a crossroads: Indian IPDs can either help in giving a modernity and shape the jurisdiction of IP laws worldwide or disintegrate under the weight of the archaic laws. However, the failure to acknowledge AI-created patents and exclusive rights on literary and artistic creations, as well as questioning a blockchain identification system, is not due to sheer judicial procrastination but is a dire threat to India’s innovation systems. Thus, with no precedents in place, IPDs may lead to ambiguity, conflicting decisions, and legal loopholes with regard to the advancement of technology. [3]The answer is not doubt, it is legal contingency. If India is to become a pioneer in IP laws, then its courts have to accept inventions powered by artificial intelligence, recognize decentralized systems of copyright, and establish definitive legal precedents prior to archaic laws transforming into roadblocks and not opportunities for innovation.
STRATEGIC IMPACT ON INDIA’S INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM:-
The formation of the Specialized Intellectual Property Divisions (IPDs) of the Indian High Courts has revolutionized the IP situation in India and put India at a vantage place in the international arena as a premier IP destination. These divisions have benefited the enhancement of India’s IP protection, which, in turn, has led to FDI and enhanced R&D in many industries. Through better IP rules of determination, India is set to develop as a core innovation sector nation, especially in the pharmaceutical, information technology, and entertainment business fields, guaranteeing that inventors and companies can practice in the protected legal framework.
A good IP adjudication system also has the function of enhancing investor and business confidence as far as investments are concerned. The better protection of IP rights, especially nowadays when the actions take place in the digital environment, helps domestic and international companies to be confident in the inviolability of their inventions and other creations. These specialized divisions resolve disputes faster and with less uncertainty than traditional litigation procedures, therefore providing a suitable legal environment that is suitable for startups and entrepreneurs and global firms so that market stability and economic growth can be enhanced.
Another equally important area of transformation that ought to be achieved within the context of regional judicial cooperation is the enhancement of judicial capacity. Continuing professional development initiatives of the judiciary and the legal professional keep them up to date with the developments in IP law, resolution of technology-related disputes, and the best practices. Moreover, the process of aligning the interpretations of the judiciary systems of different countries helps to minimize conflicts and enhance India’s credibility as a suitable territory for IP protection.
Despite these advancements, challenges remain. In this light, expanding IP divisions across the country is very important to achieve a fair substance and recognition of such occasions. It is also important to address issues relating to resource constraints, gaps in judicial training courses, as well as the work experience and technicality against legal principles within these divisions. With progressive developments, it can be opined that India’s specialized IP dispensation system can be informative to the best of new economy jurists.
STRENGTHENING THE PILLARS OF IP ADJUDICATION:-
The improvement of an efficient and effective IPR adjudication system in India is important as it plays critical to enhance innovation in the country’s economy. Although creation of IPDs at High Courts has been a promising development, there is still need for improvement in ways through which they can be made more effective and user-friendly.
Expanding IPDs Across Major High Courts
At present, specialized IPDs are in various High Courts, including the well-known Delhi High Court, as a key platform for IPR litigation. However, concentrating the delivery of specialized IP adjudication to a few jurisdictions implies disparity in access to justice and high costs to those in other regions.[4] Therefore, it is necessary to set up IPDs in all significant High Courts of the country. This would help in the decentralisation of IPR adjudication, hence increasing its availability and decreasing the disparity in the regions. In addition, it would reduce the burden of caseload on the current IPDs and help in providing quicker solutions.
Establishing a Centralized IP Court
Another proposition can be the establishment of an IP court that will be in charge of hearing all IPR cases across the country. Though this way, it will help to remove variation in judgments plus provide required specialized expertise, there could be certain issues as well. This centralization may lead to inconvenience, challenge, and high transport costs to the litigants, especially when they are from different regions. Also, a single court may become congested, which results in a situation such as the one experienced by the defunct Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Hence, the establishment of more IPDs within some High Courts seems to be a more reasonable solution, providing the necessary level of specialization and, at the same time, regional accessibility.
Enhancing Judicial Training in IP Law
A good number of provisions of IP law are complicated and require that the judges be well-equipped to handle them. This means that all judges who are to be posted at compulsory courts should be subjected to mandatory technical training on patent law and other IP specialties. It would cut down on the practice of relying on specialists and make procedures less convoluted, all while bolstering the quality of judgements. WIPO has become the center for such educational programs, which can enable the judicial officers to be well equipped with knowledge on issues of IP.
Subsidized IP Legal Services for Startups and SMEs
Start-up companies and small to medium-sized companies are usually financially challenged and rarely are in a position to fully patent and defend their inventions. For this purpose, the government must offer low-priced legal services targeting such businesses. Initiatives such as the Startups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) scheme are in the right spirit where the financial and legal assistance of startups for protecting and asserting their IP assets. Such issues would extend such ideas as some aspects of protection and defense of intellectual property rights would become economically feasible for emerging business enterprises.[5]
To reform IPR adjudication in India, the government must take a multi-angle approach that calls for an increase in the number of specialized IPDs, increased training for judges, incorporation of alternative methods of dispute resolution, and funding for legal services to startups and SMEs. All these measures in total would establish a better form of IP protection since it would spearhead improvement of the efficiency of the entire system that is responsible for the protection of IPRs, thus enhancing innovation as well as economy.
EXPANDING JURISDICTIONAL REACH:-
The future of India’s IP adjudication ecosystem hinges on the strategic expansion and refinement of Specialized Intellectual Property Divisions (IPDs). As it has been done earlier by the Delhi High Court, it is imperative to extend IPDs to other High Courts so that there is availability of specialized legal services throughout the nation. A nationwide framework will thus strive to ensure that these rulings will be consistent, tackle the congestion within the courts that leads to protracted litigations, and assist India to improve its position in the standard of IP enforcement internationally.
So, to enhance the process of adjudication, there is a need to enhance inter-jurisdictional cooperation between the Indian High Courts and international IP tribunals. It will also promote the sharing of information as India also needs to catch up with the current global trends. Also, technology and automation, such as in legal technology and artificial intelligence (AI), can transform case management, resulting in a predictive jurisprudence and automated legal research to facilitate more efficient and informed decisions.
The legal regulation itself is to grow, thus meeting the emerging challenges such as creating ownership rights for AI-created inventions, protecting of copyrights in the digital environment, and the issue of patents in biotechnology. Thus, keeping itself updated on statutory provisions will enable India to remain ahead of the curve on the protection of advanced innovations. There is a need to enhance the application of ADR mechanisms in IP adjudication since they are an efficient and less costly tool for the parties involved. Enhancing ‘collaboration between public and private entities in legal research’ and ‘integration of IP divisions and commercial courts in the country’ would go a long way to enhance India’s status as a leader in ‘IP governance around the world’. After years of progression and development in the legal and policy domains, India can work towards constructing the ideal contemporary IP dispensation for the formulation of the future.
CONCLUSION:-
The formation of Specialized Intellectual Property Divisions (IPDs) in Indian High Courts is a revolutionary change in the Indian judicial system and delivery of IP cases, which is efficient and technology-enabled and handled by experts. These divisions have helped strengthen India’s innovation environment that aims at rallying capital, protecting creativity, and ensuring that legal systems comply with international IP norms.
In the case of intellectual property, change is persistent with the need to respond to ever more novel technologies and standards of the global market context. For enhancing and developing the IP adjudication mechanisms, these happen to be the best roles witnessed by policymakers in the judiciary and industry players. The advancement of IP should be adopted and maintained in a continuous reform process with cross-border collaboration and implementation of modern technology; this will sustain the status of India as a world-leading country in the field of IP and bring about economic and technological developments.
Conclusion: The Urgent Need for a Future-Ready IP Adjudication System
The IPDs of India were expected to act as a revolution in the country’s legal system, but it’s about time to recognize that, without significant changes, they will only add another level to the courts. The gradual integration of IPD in some High Courts has led to geographical disparities in the delivery of justice to members who have to wait longer to attain justice and burdened innovators who cannot easily access proper legal redress. The complete lack of materially actionable AI and blockchain models leaves India’s position for leveraging its population as the IT talent hub to capture the global digital economy in legal limbo while the rest of the world races ahead with policy action plans. Even the pharmaceutical sector does not escape the variation in applications of what constitutes a patentable invention, thus putting India at the humiliating jeopardy of its corporate interests and policy knot.
However, the answer is not to abolish IPDs but to strengthen them—starting with the compulsory familiarization of judges with the IP sections, establishing IP courts in all High Courts in the country, and creating specialized AI and blockchain panels to produce synchronized and progressive judgments in the future. Several policies aimed at supporting startups and SMEs, which are innovating India’s economy at the moment, should include affordable IP legal services to guarantee that IP protection does not remain a luxurious service for big companies only. It is pertinent to mention that for high-stakes cases relating to pharma, AI, or blockchain among other fields, establishing a National IP Court may help in avoiding confusion about jurisdictions and maintain India’s competitiveness in the IP domain.
IPDs currently occupy one of the most promising stages where they can guide India to have better and stronger IPs across the globe, or else it can become parallel to a mere bureaucratic structure that hinders inventions in the country while harboring the role of their protection. When the world is advancing toward the innovative civilization of Artificial intelligence, decentralization of digital property, and biotechnology, India cannot wait and hesitate. The courts must evolve with technology, not lag behind it. As the great jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, “The law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of a progressive society.” Without decisive action, India’s IP laws risk being neither articulate nor progressive—merely obsolete.
REFERENCES:-
- NDTV Profit, IPAB Issue Finally Comes to a Conclusion: Delhi High Court Creates Specialist IP Division (Feb. 2025), https://www.ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ipab-issue-finally-comes-to-a-conclusion-delhi-high-court-creates-specialist-ip-division.
- Press Information Bureau (PIB), Archived Release (Oct. 3, 2002), https://archive.pib.gov.in/archive/releases98/lyr2002/roct2002/03102002/r031020021.html.
- IAM Media, The Delhi High Court IP Division’s First Year Has Transformed Indian IP Jurisprudence (2023), https://www.iam-media.com/article/the-delhi-high-court-ip-divisions-first-year-has-transformed-indian-ip-jurisprudence.
- Asia IP Law, India Post-IPAB: Should Other Courts Also Have Their Own IP Division? (2023), https://asiaiplaw.com/article/india-post-ipab-should-other-courts-also-have-their-own-ip-division.
- Chambers & Partners, Life Sciences & Pharma IP Litigation 2025: Trends & Developments – India (2025), https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/life-sciences-pharma-ip-litigation-2025/india/trends-and-developments.
- IRA Law, The Changing Face of IP Litigation in India (2023), https://ira.law/publication/the-changing-face-of-ip-litigation-in-india.
- Lexology, The Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (2023), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0ce75a2a-2ef7-4886-b420-b57821117cc0.
- Managing IP, Game-Changer: The Intellectual Property Division of the High Court of Delhi (2022), https://www.managingip.com/article/2aoxdrzghl7fpb3f1ce80/sponsored-content/game-changer-the-intellectual-property-division-of-the-high-court-of-delhi.
- Live Law, Delhi High Court IP Division: Justice Prathiba M. Singh on Post-IPAB Developments (2023), https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ip-division-ipab-justice-prathiba-m-singh-227316.
- The Hindu, Delhi HC Orders Amazon to Pay $39 Million in Damages in Beverly Hills Polo Club Case (Mar. 2025), https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/delhi-hc-orders-amazon-to-pay-39-million-in-damages-in-beverly-hills-polo-club-case/article69269096.ece.
- Indian Kanoon, Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116548206/.
- Kluwer Patent Blog, Monsanto v. Nuziveedu: A Missed Opportunity by the Supreme Court? (2020), https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/27/monsanto-v-nuziveedu-a-missed-opportunity-by-the-supreme-court.
- Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT), The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights: A Case for Reform in Indian Law (2024), https://www.ijlt.in/post/the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-intellectual-property-rights-a-case-for-reform-in-indian-p.
- Live Law, AI-Generated Inventions and the Indian Patent Act: Global Comparisons and Legal Challenges (2024), https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/ai-generated-inventions-chatgpt-indian-patent-act-dabus-united-states-patent-trademark-office-european-patent-office-226394.
- Chambers of Namrata Pahwa, Blockchain & Intellectual Property: The Legal Frontier (2024), https://chambersofnamratapahwa.com/blockchain-intellectual-property.
- Intellectual Property India (IP India), Startup Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) Scheme (2024), https://ipindia.gov.in/SIPP.htm.
- Live Law, Trade Marks Act, IPAB, and the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021: Legal Implications (2024), https://www.livelaw.in/columns/trade-marks-act-intellectual-property-appellate-board-tribunal-reforms-act-2021-195663.
[1] https://www.ijlt.in/post/the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-intellectual-property-rights-a-case-for-reform-in-indian-p?
[2] https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/ai-generated-inventions-chatgpt-indian-patent-act-dabus-united-states-patent-trademark-office-european-patent-office-226394?
[3] https://chambersofnamratapahwa.com/blockchain-intellectual-property/?
[4] https://www.iam-media.com/article/the-delhi-high-court-ip-divisions-first-year-has-transformed-indian-ip-jurisprudence?
[5] https://ipindia.gov.in/SIPP.htm?
This article has been written by Utsavi Doshi. For any other queries, reach out to us at: queries.ylcc@gmail.com
