The highlight of the week was Kartik’s two-part post where he provided a hard-hitting, break-down analysis of the GIPC Index, 2015. In the first part he highlighted that the goal of the Index is to appease major industry lobbies, much like last year. With the focus on the pharmaceutical industry, he argues that a baselines assumption is established without really explaining how that helps innovation. He also opines that the Index turns a blind eye to the relationship between IP and innovation. He concludes that the Index’s main focus is on what the Big Industries- Pharma and Tobacco- want from economies around the world. In the second part Kartik deals with the specific concerns that the index raises in the Indian context. He dissects the “main concerns” that the Index has laid out by proving most of them to be incorrect. He also cautions that while the Index mentions the steps taken by the new administration towards amending IP laws with optimism, these are the very changes that are cause for concern seeing the damage that they will cause to the public health sector. He concludes that this, along with the Draft IP Policy indicates that international pressure against India’s IP regime seems to be working.
In the first post this week, working on a tip from our dedicated readers and their helpful comments, Gopika brought us an update on the Glenmark Symed dispute in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court had initially awarded an injuction order afainst Glenmaark’s manufacture of Symed’s Linezoid. In Glenmark’s appeal against this order, a Division Bench of the High Court was admitted and the matter has been listed for arguments in April.
Then, Anubha posted part-I of her two part series on the comments to the DIPP on the Draft National IPR Policy by Prof. Srividhya Ragavan. Prof. Brook Baker and Prof. Sean Flynn. The second part of the series will be on submissions to the DIPP on the Draft Policy by Centre for Internet and Society.
In the third post this week, Aparajita dealt with a case before the Delhi High Court in Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Union of India. The issue here was whether the Registrar of Copyrights had the power to grant licenses over and above those directed by the Copyright Board. She lays out the facts and contentions succinctly. The Court did not decide the issue as the decision of the Copyright Board was challenged before the Madras High Court.
Aparajita discussed the January, 2015 decision of the US Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) in Omega v. Costco. She discussed the First Sale Doctrine and the concept of Parallel Import that flows from it. Tying the case in with these concepts and the India position, she notes that legalizing parallel imports, especially for developing countries, will go a long way in enabling access to books and knowledge.
Kiran brought out a tidbit informing our readers of the Report on Online Intermediary Liability in India brought out by the Centre for Communication governance at NLU Delhi. She briefly discusses the contents of the Report.
Thereafter, Mathews discussed the Central Government’s Jan Aushadhi campaign aimed at providing quality medicines at affordable prices. Noting the raw end of the deal that customers get when they have to rely on doctors’ prescriptions, Mathews opines that this development is a welcomed one. He also believes, albeit skeptically of the Indian context, that this and other similar price-control measures will automatically resolve the differential pricing dilemma faced by innovator pharmaceutical companies.
In his next post this week, Kartik made an interesting argument regarding a little spoken about hurdle that must be dealt with to ensure access to affordable medications- government apathy. He discussed Vidya Krishnan’s analysis on an article on LiveMint highlighting the acute drug shortage faced by NAPC. Kartik wrote that the situation with AIDS and non-payment by the government is not a one-off event. Shortage has come up in the context of Tuberculosis previously and currently in the case of Swine Flu. He concludes that there is more focus on policy and less on implementation and that the government and its attitude is most responsible in debates regarding access.
Then, I wrote about the MHRD IPR Chairs and the extreme inefficiency of the IPERPO Scheme under which they were instituted. Drawing from two posts of the Centre for Internet and Society, I criticized the working of the Chairs as a large amount of money goes unaccounted for and underutilized, the MHRD portal remains exists without update, Chairs continue to remain vacant as more non-MHRD IPR Chairs are instituted and the level of liberty given to Universities leads to unreasoned axing of distinguished professors from their posts. I conclude that while some Chairs are known for good work and the MHRD chooses to speak up against abhorrent practices, there is a long way to go for the MHRD IPR Chairs to fulfill their purpose.
Thomas provided us with a tidbit on the Auto Parts Case. In a case where writs of BMW and Hyundai were clubbed and disposed of by a common order, the petitioners attacked the validity of the CCI Order on three grounds. The High Court dismissed all three conditions noting that there was no suo moto investigation by the DG, the report referenced practices of other manufacturers upon which the Commission initiated the investigation into them. The Court also held that the statute allowed the requirement of prima facie case to be waived in case new information was substantially the same as information already received. Thomas notes that the judgment does little to modify the situation and that Hyundai is opened to possible proceedings at the Commission while the Order of the CCI remains unaffected.
Finally, Kiran discussed two tech start-ups- Qentis and Cloem, and their business models. She observed that the Russian Qentis “seems to envision the establishment of a copyright monopoly of sorts, where the pather to all seemingly original creations will always lead to Qentis”. Cloem on the other hand uses software language operation to manipulate a seed group of a client’s patent claims providing for the possibility of patenting several new inventions. She goes on to discuss the hurdles in law that these two companies may face. She notes that the coming into existence of these two companies is a glaring indicator of the development in technology and how regulations must step in to ensure their creation as definitely desirable.
Also this week, Devika announced the Grand Masters 2015 – In-house Counsel Legal Best Practices that started on February 20, 2015 and will go on till February 27, 2015. The Summit aims at recognizing the best in-house counsels and creating an ambience conducive to brainstorming for the next-gen in-house counsel. The Summit is happening in New Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore.
International news
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales had an important ruling dealing with counterfeit websites and related intermediaries. (read analysis here- http://ipkitten.blogspot.in/2015/02/the-richemont-ruling-and-beyond-dealing.html)
An Australian high Court is set to look into the patentability of isolated genetic molecules. (http://www.managingip.com/Article/3427347/Managing-Patents-Archive/Australia-High-Court-to-tackle-Myriad.html)
In a patent infringement case against Samsung, a Texas federal jury found that Samsung had infringed on Rembrandt patents covering Bluetooth technology. (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rembrandt-technologies-wins-157-million-jury-verdict-in-patent-infringement-case-against-samsung-300036656.html)
Two more States- the US and Japan- joined the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs (http://www.managingip.com/Article/3427650/Managing-Trade-Marks-Archive/US-and-Japan-join-the-Hague-System.html)
Other national stories
Tata Sons, which holds 51% stake in Tata SIA with Singapore Airlines was recently refused registration of Vistara as a Trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks Delhi. (http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-vistara-airline-trademark-liable-to-be-refused-says-registrar-2061325)
[Our readers can now receive updates on the go- Click here to join our Facebook Page & follow us on Twitter (SpicyIP tweets at @SpicyIP). For extra tidbits and coverage of IP news exclusively for our subscribers, join our mailing list today!]
