SpicyIP Weekly Review (14th July to 20th July)

spicyipREVThe week started with quite an interesting development – Merck and Glenmark were to mediate in the Januvia (Sitagliptin) patent infringement case. Madhulika reported on this, her post covering a brief history of the dispute, as well as making an important observation as to the trend of mediation being in vogue in patent cases. The other similar example that she points to is the Roche-Cipla case. She also points to the potential anti-trust implications that patent settlements might have.

Swaraj then reported on a very heartening development where a number of school students and members of the public digitized, proofread and uploaded 150 rare and out-of-copyright Malayalam books as part of a digitization contest organized to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Wiki Source project by the Centre for Internet and Society. The effort was focused on the preservation of these books which are indeed a valuable resource. This move definitely comes as a shot in the arm for the access to knowledge movement. The books can be accessed here.

Swaraj then brought us what is the SpicyIP Highlight of the Week. The Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge by Bayer AG to the IPAB’s decision to grant Natco a compulsory license to manufacture and distribute a generic version of Bayer’s patented kidney cancer drug, Nexavar.

Our next post was by Manoj Pillai – the co-founder of LexOrbis, an IP firm, and co-promoter of Clairvolex, an IP solutions provider. He writes about the direction in which the patent infantry is headed. He points out that IP services and invention production are going global and that this has significant impact on the IP Services space.

Gopika then wrote about the coming into force of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing from October 12, 2014 pursuant to its ratification by 51 countries. The ratification by 50 countries was the threshold requirement. The first meeting of the parties to the Protocol is scheduled to be held during the Conference of Parties to the CBD, slated from 13-17 October in Pyeongchang, South Korea.

Swaraj then informed us about the 3rd Annual Legal Era IPR Conclave & Awards on “IPR: Global Innovation and Growth” to be held in Mumbai – the nominations for which have been released. It is scheduled to be held from August 1, 2014   – August 2, 2014. More details can be found here and here.

Mathews then reported on very well written judgement by J. G.S. Patel of the Bombay High Court in Mansoob Haider v. Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd, which refused to grant interim injunction against release of “DHOOM 3” via satellite broadcast. The court relying on the case of R.G. Anand v. Delux Films and held that though there similarities between the two, the test of substantial similarity was not met.

Madhulika then brought us the last post for the week, where she reported on National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority capping the prices of 108 anti-diabetic and cardiovascular formulations. She notes that this is a momentous development in the context of access to medicines, however, the pharma industry has not taken the news too well. She points to a severe market failure in the drugs market and points out that in such a delicate area such as health and medication, such measure might in fact be beneficial.

International Developments

  1. IPWatch reports that the UNHRC has come out with a resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the internet. (detailed post to follow)
  2. They also report that the Medicines Patent Pool has announced seven sub-licensing agreements for generic HIV medicines in order to make more generics available to developing countries which are more affordable.
  3. IPKat reports that the Attorney General has released his opinion on the CJEU case of International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents which states, “Unfertilised human ova whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis are not included in the term ‘human embryos’ in Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44 … on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions as long as they are not capable of developing into a human being and have not been genetically manipulated to acquire such a capacity”


About The Author

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top