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 there were an overlap.
In a guest post, Adarsh Ramanujan shared his thoughts on drug pricing in light of Donald Trump’s recent presidential address. He discusses the concept of an international pricing index for patented drugs, which may result in a scenario where developed countries such as the USA will not be overcharged to compensate for the lower pricing in developing countries. He argues that such a situation would, at least in theory, affect the way in which Indian litigators would be able to approach cases of drug pricing or compulsory licensing.
Prashant wrote on the opposition filed against Janssen’s patent application for the fumarate salt form of Bedaquiline. He notes that Section 3(d) would be an obstacle to the new drug receiving a patent due to the requirement of an improvement in therapeutic efficacy. He also notes that the opposition that has been made may be on the wrong grounds, but this may be moot since the patent would likely be rejected in any case.