The week’s thematic highlight has to be the guest post on the ‘physical copy’ doctrine in Indian Copyright Law, contributed by MV Swaroop and Shrey Patnaik. In the aftermath of the Raabta-Magadheera copyright row, Swaroop analyses copyright in cinematographic films and the apparent divergence of the Calcutta High Court from the text of Section 14 of the Copyright Act in allowing the producer of a film to sue for infringement of a ‘copycat’ or substantially similar film.
The topical highlight for the week was Maitreyee’s report on the massive development in the Roche – Cipla dispute, with Cipla withdrawing the Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s decision which upheld the validity of Roche’s patent over Erlotinib Hydrochloride, a crucial cancer treatment drug. This development possibly brings an end to India’s first major post-TRIPS pharmaceutical patents dispute.
We had several other exciting posts for the week, starting with Prashant’s update on the challenge by the Madras Bar Association to the Finance Act, 2017 and the Tribunals Rules, which essentially allow the central government to ‘stuff’ tribunals with their own appointments. The challenge is premised on the fact that the Finance Act, being a money bill, could not have amended the parent legislations, which were passed as ordinary bills. The Government has been served notice and its reply is awaited. This blog is certainly going to follow up on the developments in this case.
Next, Pankhuri helpfully informed everybody about the recent Trade Talk on IP, Innovation & Public Interest To Be Hosted by Centre for WTO Studies.
After this, we had Prateek’s post on the seemingly ad-hoc allocation of IP matters in the Madras High Court, and a clear insight into how appointments could be improved. The post elicited some (spicy) reactions from our readers in the comments, spimaking for a great post-script.
Finally, we had Sreyoshi’s post on the recent disputes involving a suit by blogger Sugar Hero against the Food Network over claims of copyright over food videos. Sreyoshi argues that the basis of the challenge goes to the root of what constitutes originality, particularly in the context of cinematographic films, and also possibly reopens a long standing issue in copyright law concerning the copyrightability of recipes.