This week’s thematic highlight was Prof. Basheer’s and Pankhuri’s fantastic two-part post on open access at the Indian Patent Office, dealing specifically with the difficulty of accessing, and poor intelligibility of, the documents uploaded on the IPO website. In Part I, they demonstrated this with the help of the three compulsory licensing orders that have been passed by the IPO. Thereafter, in Part II, they concluded their analysis and advanced specific suggestions to improve transparency at the IPO and make patent data more accessible.
The topical highlight of the week is Prashant’s post (here) on the Indian Singer’s Rights Association litigation before the Delhi High Court. Saregama and T-Series have appealed a decision of Justice Muralidhar against a Delhi-based bar and restaurant on the grounds that it was an affected party. This appeal gives the Delhi High Court the opportunity to clarify the law on scope of performer’s rights generally, and the precise ownership rights vesting in ISRA.
Prashant also posted this week on the difficulties the DIPP may run into should it confirm rumours and appoint Justice Manmohan Singh as Chairman, IPAB. Petitioners in litigation that has been split across the Delhi High Court and the IPAB arising out of the same cause of action may seek Justice Singh’s recusal on the grounds that he has already expressed an opinion on the matter. Prashant argues that the DIPP ought to preempt the expected ensuing litigation by drafting procedure or by issuing a memorandum on recusals.
Finally, Pankhuri informed us that Majumdar & Co. is looking for an Associate (Litigation) for its IP practice in New Delhi. Please click here for more details.