Prashant wrote a post on an order passed by the Delhi HC concerning the marketing of a biosimilar of the breast cancer drug Herceptin by Reliance Life Sciences. Genentech, which owned the erstwhile patent for Herceptin, filed a suit against Reliance claiming that their drug did not comply with Guidelines for Biosimilars and hence could not claim to be as efficacious as the drug sold under the Herceptin brand. In this appeal, the Delhi HC overturned the decision of Justice Manmohan Singh that held in favour of Genentech in a similar case against Biocon and Mylan, thus giving the go-ahead to Reliance Life Science’s biosimilar. However, Prashant notes that the judgment records a number of damaging allegations against the way Reliance conducted its clinical trials, which may make doctors hesitate before prescribing their drug.
Swaraj wrote a post on some of the earlier work of Michael Kremer (recent winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics) in the field of patents and public health in developing countries – theoretical work that has since also been converted to practical action via what are called “Advanced Market Commitments” (AMCs) for vaccines. Kremer has proposed to solve the conflict between incentives and accessibility by looking towards a prize system as a supplement, rather than an alternative to the patent system. This proposal has seen interest from a number of countries, and still remains relevant in the field of public health.
In his first submission, fellowship applicant Antony Moses critically discusses the changes in YouTube’s copyright enforcement policy. The change allows copyright owners to block or restrict commercialisation of infringing content, but not claim the money made by infringing content. Antony argues that this change may not result in the desired balance that YouTube is attempting to create. He argues, instead, for the incorporation of the ‘de minimis’ rule in YouTube’s copyright enforcement policy and Content ID software, which would be more flexible and objective in its application.
In a guest post, Jagdish Sagar wrote on the decision of the Bombay HC in Tips v Wynk. He notes that while the decision in the case is correct, it missed out on more persuasive reasons to reach the same. He argues that since broadcasting over the internet does not require a license, ‘broadcasting via the internet’ should not constitute ‘broadcasting’ under the Copyright Act 1957. As a consequence, Section 31D cannot be made applicable to internet broadcasters such as Spotify or Wynk.
- Plea in Madras HC to block release of Vijay’s film ‘Bigil’.
- Hike becomes one of the top three patent filers in India.
- Delhi High Court dismissed the petition of German drugmaker against Natco Pharma.
- China accounts for nearly half of global patent filings: UN
- Delhi HC refuses to grant ad-interim injunction to Saregama for copyright infringement.
- DPIIT launches website and mobile app for IPR.
- India among top 10 countries in intellectual property filings.
- Centrient Pharmaceuticals initiates a second patent litigation in India against Dalas Biotech Limited.
- Exam answer sheet is information under RTI: Madras HC.
- Dr Zeus threatens ‘Bala’ makers for plagiarising his song ‘Don’t Be Shy’
A piece in the Hindustan Times discusses the role of intellectual property rights in the reformation of the education sector.
- Katy Perry and Dark Horse collaborators appeal for a re-trial in plagiarism judgement that cost them almost 3 million dollars.
- Twitter suspends pro-Trump meme creator for copyright violation.
- US-India IP Dialogue aimed at strengthening IP collaboration.
- Sun pharma gets a global license for CSIR-IICT’S patents for new drug compounds.
- Quick Heal gets US patent for signature-less, behaviour-based detection technology.
- Justin Bieber is being sued for posting a paparazzi photo of himself.