National Biodiversity Authority Imposing Upfront Monetary Payment as Benefit Sharing for Research

There has been a recent development in the context of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (‘BDA’), which I thought was interesting to share and discuss on the blog. Back in 2018, the Central Government issued the direction to the National Biodiversity Authority (‘NBA’) purportedly under Section 48 of the BDA. According to this office memorandum (followed by another) a kind of immunity deal was provided for persons who had committed any acts without the required approval from the authorities under…

IPAB’s Order Staying ‘N95’ Trademark Registration Highlights Systemic Failures

by Adarsh Ramanujan December 24, 2020

1 Comment

Introduction In an order earlier this month, the IPAB issued an interim stay of the operation of the trademark registration for the word ‘N95’ (registration number 4487559 in class 10). The IPAB prima facie held that ‘N95’ is a generic word and could not have been registered under section 9 of the Trade Marks Act. I have no comment on the outcome of the order, and frankly, it is doubtful whether the registration would survive a final hearing. There have…

The New Form 27 (Patent Working Statement): Heading in the Wrong Direction?

by Adarsh Ramanujan November 12, 2020

1 Comment

As Pankhuri noted in a recent post, the Government of India published the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2020 last month, inter alia, amending the format/contents of the working statements or Form 27 to be filed by every patentee and licensee. The contents of the new Form 27 have already been discussed in her post here. Removal of requirement to make statement on meeting public requirement The new Form 27 removes the requirement of having to make a vague statement on whether…

Retroactive Trademark Assignment Agreements: Another Slip in IPAB’s Decision in Eveready Industries v. Kamlesh Chadha?

by Adarsh Ramanujan November 6, 2020

In my earlier post on the IPAB’s decision (dated September 22, 2020) in Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. Mrs. Kamlesh Chadha, I had introduced the case and covered the issue concerning the renewal procedure. In this post, I discuss another connected issue, concerning the validity of the assignment agreement executed in 2009 but with effect from 2005. Based on evidence, the IPAB concluded that this was a sham document and I don’t intend to get into an analysis of whether…

Trademark Renewal Procedure: A Slip in IPAB’s Decision in Eveready Industries v. Kamlesh Chadha?

by Adarsh Ramanujan November 5, 2020

The judgement of the IPAB (dated September 22, 2020) in Eveready Industries India Ltd v. Mrs. Kamlesh Chadha concerns original rectification petitions against two trademark registrations of the respondents – one for the word mark ‘Eveready’ and the other for a logo of Eveready, both in class 8 (screwdrivers, cutting pliers, hand tools etc.). The IPAB allowed the rectifications and directed the removal of the two marks from the Trade Marks Registry. This judgment is a highly fact-oriented and my…

U.K. Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on SEPs: An Imperfect Solution, But Is There a Perfect One? (Part II)

by Adarsh Ramanujan September 16, 2020

1 Comment

[Disclosure: I represent/have represented clients on related and unrelated issues. Views expressed here are personal.] In Part I, I had summarised the U.K. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Unwired case. In this Part II, I share my critique of the judgement. While I have several comments, I have restricted myself to the principal ones for the present platform. Must a FRAND license always be global? At 1st glance, the U.K. Supreme Court’s judgment suggests that a FRAND license must always…

U.K. Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on SEPs: An Imperfect Solution, But Is There a Perfect One? (Part I)

by Adarsh Ramanujan September 16, 2020

[Disclosure: I represent/have represented clients on related and unrelated issues. Views expressed here are personal.] In a recent landmark ruling, the U.K. Supreme Court (here) dismissed the appeals filed by implementers of technical standards, i.e. Huawei, ZTE, against standard essential patent (SEP) holders, i.e. Unwired and Conversant. This is a well-known dispute and has previously been covered by this blog here, here, and briefly touched upon here. In this Part I, I will focus on summarising the ruling, reserving my…

Yves Choueifaty v. Attorney General of Canada: An Interesting Development from Canada on Claim Construction and Patent Office Manuals

by Adarsh Ramanujan September 9, 2020

This time, I want to discuss recent judgement from the Federal Court of Canada – Yves Choueifaty v. Attorney General of Canada, 2020 FC 837 – available here. I found it interesting because it concerned the patentability of computer-related inventions (CRI) and addressed a situation where the Court found the Patent Office Manual to be erroneous. The case concerned the invention that claimed a computer-implemented method concerning investment portfolios. An in-depth assessment of the claims or the technology at hand…

Of Paper Tigers and English: WTO Appellate Body Report in Tobacco Plain Packaging Dispute

by Adarsh Ramanujan August 21, 2020

3 Comments

As a law school student, I once heard an accomplished practitioner of international law stating that “International law is English”. The WTO Appellate Body’s Report in the tobacco plain packaging dispute issued in June this year proves something more than this statement: “International law is convoluted English”. I had previously written about the WTO Panel Report in this dispute (or set of disputes), which are available here and here. Background To recollect, this set of disputes concerned Australia’s legislative measures…

SpicyIP Tidbit : EBA’s Recent Ruling on Patentability of Plants and Animals : Any Impact on India?

by Adarsh Ramanujan May 20, 2020