February 2019

Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar Summer Fellowship 2019 [Apply by March 15]

We’re pleased to inform you that the Inter University Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies (IUCIPRS), CUSAT is offering two Summer Fellowships under ‘IUCIPRS Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar Summer Fellowship’ program during April to June 2019. IUCIPRS has instituted this Fellowship to encourage teachers interested in IP research in India to spend minimum of two months during summer (April to June) at IUCIPRS undertaking research work in IP. Applications should reach the Director on or before March 15, 2019. The norms […]

Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar Summer Fellowship 2019 [Apply by March 15] Read More »

SaReGaMa Pa-rdon Me, You Have the Wrong Address: On the Perils and Pitfalls of Notice and Takedown

The universe surely has a strange sense of humour. Imagine our surprise when we received a notice from Google Inc., that they had de-indexed one of blogs after a complaint was filed against it by Saregama India Pvt. Ltd. On December 13, 2018, Google informed us that: “Google has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that some of the material found on your site allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others. Although some

SaReGaMa Pa-rdon Me, You Have the Wrong Address: On the Perils and Pitfalls of Notice and Takedown Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (Feb 4-10)

Thematic Highlight In the first of a two-part post, I wrote on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Star India v DIPP. In its judgment, the court delineated the regulatory powers of TRAI, in light of alleged overlaps with the Copyright Act. The court noted that the regulations passed by TRAI did not tread onto the ‘broadcast reproduction right’ granted under Section 37 of the Copyright Act. In the next part, I will discuss the court’s holding on the outcome if

SpicyIP Weekly Review (Feb 4-10) Read More »

A Second Opposition Is Filed Against Janssen’s Patent Application For The Fumarate Salt Form of Bedaquiline

Multiple news outlets recently reported about a pre-grant patent opposition filed by two TB survivors, with support from MSF, against a patent application filed by Janssen for a salt form of its experimental TB drug bedaquiline. In a press note put out by MSF, it was claimed that this opposition “…is the first ever challenge against a TB drug patent in India”. This is a factually incorrect statement. The patent application under challenge, as per Sandeep Rathod’s analysis of the

A Second Opposition Is Filed Against Janssen’s Patent Application For The Fumarate Salt Form of Bedaquiline Read More »

Guest Post (Adarsh Ramanujan): Why Donald Trump’s Union Address Matters for Pharma Patents in India

We’re pleased to bring to you a guest post by Adarsh Ramanujan. Adarsh is an advocate primarily assisting clients as a litigation attorney. He has recently started his own counsel practice with offices in Delhi and Chennai after having spent considerable time with Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan at their New Delhi and Geneva offices. He obtained his B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) degree (Gold Medalist) from National Law University, Jodhpur  and LL.M. degree from University of California, Berkeley. He is a qualified Patent Agent

Guest Post (Adarsh Ramanujan): Why Donald Trump’s Union Address Matters for Pharma Patents in India Read More »

Supreme Court on TRAI’s Regulatory Powers (Part 1)

In this belated two-part post, I will try to unpack a judgment of the Supreme Court (available here) from October 2017, on the scope of TRAI’s regulatory power with respect to broadcasting services. It reached the Supreme Court in appeal after the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition in a split decision. This case was about an unsuccessful challenge to the validity of certain provisions in the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order 2017 (‘Tariff

Supreme Court on TRAI’s Regulatory Powers (Part 1) Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (28th January-3rd February)

Divij wrote a post  about the recently released draft intermediary guidelines. In his post, he specifically focusses on Draft Rule 3(9) which provides for “automated tools” and “appropriate mechanisms” for identifying “unlawful” online content. Noting the response to the similar proposed changes to the EU Copyright Directive, he analyses the various adverse impacts the Rules may have on copyright  law and access to knowledge. Rishabh wrote about a worrying development in the IPAB; the Board has allegedly been conducting hearings

SpicyIP Weekly Review (28th January-3rd February) Read More »

Scroll to Top