Our Highlight of the Week is Prof. Shamnad’s post breaking the news that a final decision in the Sovaldi opposition case had been released, after long and arduous proceedings, with his comments on the same. He specifically analyses the perspective taken in the decision on the Section 3(d) issue, and on the adjudicatory competence at the ‘quasi-judicial’ Patent Office.
We started this week with the second post in Rahul’s excellent two-part series on Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Drug Controller General of India. He starts by noting that the Delhi High Court Single Judge Bench decision had been stayed by a Division Bench, and then proceeds into a detailed analysis of the Single Judge decision.
This was followed by Shan Kohli’s fascinating post analysing a trend in China where paper versions of Gucci products were used offerings for the dead. Gucci attempted to clamp down on the same, issuing a statement saying that they “want to prevent the public thinking mistakenly that Gucci is selling funeral products. As a brand we have to defend our intellectual property.”
This was followed by my post announcing the Consilience 2016, a conference hosted jointly by SpicyIP, as part of our Ten Year Anniversary celebrations, and the Law and Technology Society on the 28th and 29th of this month. I followed this up with an updated Schedule for the event. For details, please do check the website for the Conference here – and please do sign up for what is sure to be an exciting event!
Our next post for the week was Kiran’s thought-provoking post looking into the conundrum digital media has created for identifying artists and IP owners when it comes to music from obscure origins, especially indie artists. She ties this conundrum in with ‘metadata’, considering whether it offers a potential solution.
Ritvik followed this up with a detailed post looking into reports that patent examiner Hardev Karar may have been compelled to withdraw from the Sovaldi case after he rejected Gilead’s patent application in January 2015.
Our next post for the week was a Guest Post by Jasneet Kaur, exploring the interplay between S. 29(4) and 29(5) of the Trademarks Act. She focuses on this issue in the context of the diverging views taken by the Courts in the cases of Cipla Limited v. Cipla Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and Raymond Limited v. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Private Limited.
I followed this up with a post announcing the Meet and Greet event being hosted by faculty from the Texas A&M University on the 26th of this month, where they will be discussing the programmes, financial aid and scholarships they offer for people interested in the IP field.
Swaraj followed this up with a short post on the release of the National IPR Policy, which was finally approved by the Union Cabinet this week, with detailed comments to come soon.
Finally, we wrapped this week up with Aparajita’s excellent post discussing grassroots innovation in India, and what can be done to support and even commercialise the same. She discusses this in the context of recent news about Swapnanil Talukdar, a 19 year old boy from Assam, who developed a foot-operated page-turning machine, for the benefit of those with upper-limb impairment. She then discusses the Innovation Scholars In-Residence programme of the Rashtrapati Bhavan, for which Swapnanil was selected, and then places the discussion in the larger context of the internal and external drivers of innovation, formal and informal innovation, and patents.
- Colombia Fears U.S. May Reject Peace Plan To Protect Pharma Profits.
- The TTIP may be dead.
- The AIPPI and Oxford University’s Intellectual Property Research Centre organised a discussion on the Trade Mark reform package passed by the EU institutions on 11 May.
- Android piracy group leaders plead guilty to criminal copyright infringement.
- Google and Oracle return to court in copyright infringement battle.
- Justin Bieber Faces $10 Million Charge In Copyright Infringement Lawsuit.
PS: On second thought, the Highlight of the Week was changed from what was sent out earlier.