SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 19-25)

Thematic Highlight

Apart from bringing to your notice the BHC interim injunction against Thomson press from producing copies of a translated version of the Bhagavad Gita, Inika reviews similar copyright issues over translated works and then deals with the following broader concerns:

i.  When can a translation gain a copyright of its own?
ii. Translations of works in the open domain
iii. Translations of works for which copyright still subsists.
iv. Conditions for getting permission from Copyright Board for translations.

Topical Highlight

Discussing a US PTAB verdict over a patent tussle between UC Berkeley and the Broad Institute over the CRISPR Cas-9 method for gene editing, Rahul deals with the following areas:

i. Does holding a patent over the genus imply ownership over the species as well?
ii. Implications of a split ownership over patent rights.
iii. How determining what an invention is enables better determine the inventor.

Arguing for the implementation of a Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS) for the employees of the Patent Office, Rahul discusses the following areas:

i. Entities advocating for implementation of MFCS.
ii. M.O. Finance’s reasoning for non-implementation of the scheme.
iii. Classification of patent office as a “scientific and technical organization“.
iv. The deleterious effects of non-implementation.
v. Possible alternatives to MFCS.

Suggesting that academics start adapting to the legal realities instead of dealing in unnecessary litigation, Pankhuri provided a lucid overview of a Canadian judgment that furthered the ideals of fair use in the context of educational use. Some of the interesting features of the analysis are:

i. “Substantial Copying” and “What is worth copying is worth protecting” maxim.
ii. Amount of Copying Analysis: Qualitative or Quantitative?

Finally, we have Balaji’s concise post on the issue of injunctions in relation to violation of non-worked patents.His analysis can be broken down into the following sub-heads:

i.  Bayer v. Ajantaand its problematic  formulation of “public interest“.
ii. Bayer v. BDR and its departure from the Ajanta case.
iii. The application of the Huemer rule in light of the above.

Notification Centre

1. INTA’s 139th Annual Meeting 2017.
May 20-24th.
Barcelona, Spain.
Early bird registration ends on 3rd March.
Further details here.

2. European IP Institutes Network is recruiting 15 PhD candidates for its European Joint Doctorate programme. Further details can be found here.

3. Full-time Lawyer wanted.
Screenwriters Association, Mumbai.
Qualification: LL.B. or LL.M. with three years of experience in IP matters.
Further details here.

International Developments

  1. Google’s Waymo Sues Uber
  2. Jewellery retailer Tiffany and Co. Sued for Copyright Infringement
  3. Nintendo Sues Go-Kart company over Copyright Infringement



About The Author

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top