Our SpicyIP Highlight of the Week this week is Rupali’s post on the Pest Control v. Sudhakar judgment in our I-3 series. She notes that the order passed herein was an ex-parte interim injunction, and contained no details of the patent, no analysis evaluation of the arguments, and did not even go into the four step test for interim injunctions. She then picks up from her last post and argues for the ‘relative assessment standard’ over blind deference to the Patent Office decisions, and goes on to comment on the breach of the quintessentially basic tenet of a legal system – ‘audi alteram partem’. She reproduces and discusses the (saddeningly ridiculous) order sheet of the issue, and concludes with commenting on the ease which this system creates for extortion, making a case for its removal.
Our first post of the week was Saahil Dama’s guest post in the I-3 series, commenting on Ramkumar’s dual-SIM patent. He discusses the ‘absurdness’ of this saga, and illustrates how ex parte orders often entirely fail to consider the standards for granting injunctions. He discusses the multiple procedural irregularities of the case, pointing out the multiple ways in which the ‘four standards’ were entirely ignored by the Court, again highlighting the ways in which the legal system is turned into a tool for extortion for the wily.
This was followed by Aparajita’s post on the multiple patent disputes, including a ‘double patenting’ dispute, between Eureka Forbes and Hindustan Unilever, detailing the same. She concludes by noting that the decision of the IPAB in this matter will help clarify matters, and either both the patents will be granted, and therefore noted as separate technologies, or one will be revoked.
Finally, rounding up the week is my Tidbit on TAG and GHJP’s decision to file a case against the FDA and DHHS in the US, asking for the release of clinical trial information filed by Gilead Sciences for its Sovaldi and Harvoni hepatitis C drugs.
International Developments:
- The US’s Trade Promotion Authority (‘TPA’) receives Senate approval.
- ‘Freedom of Panorama’ faces challenges in the EU.
