Author name: Aparajita Lath

Aparajita is an Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India, Bangalore. She graduated from the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata and Harvard Law School (LL.M). She has worked at AZB & Partners and Trilegal. She was also a Student Fellow at the Petrie-Flom Centre at Harvard Law School.

Teva v. Natco : Copaxone litigation update

/ By / Patent

In 2007, Teva and others filed CS (OS) No. 1708 of 2007 against Natco before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction in order to restrain Natco from infringing Teva’s Indian Patent No.190759. The prayer also asked the court for an order to restrain Natco from exporting infringing drugs outside India. The patent is a process patent for producing Glatiramer Acetate (also known as Copolymer 1 or ‘Copaxone’ as marketed by Teva). Copaxone is used for the treatment of […]

Teva v. Natco : Copaxone litigation update Read More »

Guest Post: A ‘captured’ Commerce Ministry puts profits before the safety of ‘Made in India’ medicines

/ By / Patent

Prashant Reddy has for our readers a telling post that opens a can of worms as it throws light on the goings-on in the drug regulatory arena in India. Prashant is a lawyer who advises on IP & regulatory issues in the pharmaceutical sector. A ‘captured’ Commerce Ministry puts profits before the safety of ‘Made in India’ medicines  Prashant Reddy* In December, 2014 news broke of possible action by European drug regulators against GVK Biosciences over discrepancies in clinical trials that it had

Guest Post: A ‘captured’ Commerce Ministry puts profits before the safety of ‘Made in India’ medicines Read More »

After 66A, Writ to Decriminalize Defamation before Supreme Court

/ By / Others

  In what seems like a great month for freedom of speech in India, Subramanian Swamy filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court asking the court to decriminalize defamation in India (here). This news was brought to us by Sai Vinod, a former blogger and an integral part of the SpicyIP team. After the Times Publishing House issued a defamation notice to me, threatening criminal action, I wrote a post on SpicyIP analyzing whether Sections 499/500 of the IPC

After 66A, Writ to Decriminalize Defamation before Supreme Court Read More »

Guest Post: ‘Interim damages’ in FRAND patent litigation: When did that become a thing?

/ By / Patent

Prashant Reddy has for our readers an incisive post on interim damages in FRAND patent litigation. Prashant Reddy was an integral part of SpicyIP for many years and is a prolific writer and a wonderful mentor!  Formerly with Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, Prashant is now an independent IP consultant. For our other posts on FRAND litigation see here, here, here ‘Interim damages’ in FRAND patent litigation: When did that become a thing? -Prashant Reddy In the last few years we have seen

Guest Post: ‘Interim damages’ in FRAND patent litigation: When did that become a thing? Read More »

Media Freedom: Hetero’s response to statements of Director

/ By / Others

The recent controversy surrounding statements made by the Director of Hetero Pharma (Mr. Srinivasa Reddy) in relation to compulsory licensing, which we covered here, and subsequent responses from Hetero, brings out a troubling issue for media freedom. To contextualize, after Mr. Srinivasa made controversial statements regarding Compulsory Licensing, Hetero was quick to distance itself from these comments, calling them ‘personal views’.  However, Hetero also went a step further to state “We are also taking up the matter with the requisite

Media Freedom: Hetero’s response to statements of Director Read More »

PPL’s defamation notice: More subterranean censorship?

/ By / Copyright, Others

Certain members of the Telangana Chamber of Events Industry (TCEI) received a 9 para defamation notice from PPL for few comments made by them on Facebook. The TCEI is a non-government organization, which aims at developing the Events industry in the State of Telangana. The TCEI comprises of sub sectors such as events, light/sound/video, event caterers, event venues etc. It therefore also uses sound recordings for various events that it organizes. PPL, on the other hand, is a ‘company’ (actually

PPL’s defamation notice: More subterranean censorship? Read More »

Comparative Advertising ― Havells v. Eveready: Who’s the brightest of them all?

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Trademark

As is known, every product has different features/characteristics and advertisers like to highlight only the most advantageous features and consequently remain silent on the weaker aspects of their products. In this regard, the main issue in Havells v. Amritanshu was whether or not an advertisement which compares one product with a similar rival product must necessarily compare all its features in order for it to be an ‘honest’ advertisement. The Delhi High Court held that failure to compare all the

Comparative Advertising ― Havells v. Eveready: Who’s the brightest of them all? Read More »

You can’t have the ‘pi’ and eat it too!

/ By / Trademark

Belated ‘Pi Day’! (Which did not fall on a Friday!) This post deals with the lately baked trademark issue of ‘π’ versus ‘π.’ (pi day is celebrated on March 14 (3/14) The trademark at issue in this case was the symbol pi followed by a full stop: “π.” (U.S. trademark registration 4,473,631). This registration was issued to Paul Ingrisano, aka “Pi Productions Corp” (a Brooklyn based apparel artist). π. is used by Pi Productions Corp to brand T shirts etc. (here and

You can’t have the ‘pi’ and eat it too! Read More »

Many Shades of Grey: Omega v Costco and its Implications on Parallel Imports

/ By / Copyright

On January 20, 2015 the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld Costco’s sale of Omega watches in the US, following the 2013 US Supreme Court decision in  Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons. Both decisions uphold the principle of international exhaustion and hold that the first sale doctrine applies to goods manufactured abroad. The ruling in this case reaffirms that copyright holders cannot use their rights to fix resale prices in the downstream market. As IPKat notes

Many Shades of Grey: Omega v Costco and its Implications on Parallel Imports Read More »

PPL v UOI: Delhi High Court

/ By / Copyright

In January this year, the Delhi High Court considered a matter between the Phonographic Performance Ltd. (‘PPL’) and the Union of India. The issue in the case was whether the Registrar of Copyrights (Respondent No.2) has the power to grant licences over and above those directed by the Copyright Board. The Delhi High Court did not decide this issue as it observed that the petitioners had challenged the very decision of the Copyright Board before the Madras High Court and

PPL v UOI: Delhi High Court Read More »

Scroll to Top