Balaji Subramanian

Balaji Subramanian

Balaji is a third year student at NALSAR, Hyderabad. He is currently an editor of the Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law. He is fascinated by technology law and IP law, and is an active member of NALSAR's Technology Law Forum. When he isn't doing law school things, he wanders the country looking for quizzes to participate in. He can be emailed at [email protected]

Patent

Bayer v. Ajanta: DHC Erects New Jurisprudence on Public Interest for Injunctions


On 20 December 2016, Justice RK Gauba of the Delhi High Court heard an interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH in a suit concerning IN225529 (3275/DEL/1998) against Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Bayer asserted that the patent covered vardenafil, a drug used to treat erectile dysfunction, and that Ajanta was manufacturing and selling the drug under its brand Valif. IN225529 The suit patent claims the compound, its derivatives, and pharmaceutical compositions containing…


Read More »
Patent

First ever TRIPS amendment enters into force to formalise Para 6 system


In previous posts, we have blogged about the so-called Paragraph 6 System, which reconciles an apparent tension between the competing objectives of protecting patent exclusivity and ensuring access to healthcare in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Article 31 of the TRIPS governs uses of a patented invention without the authorisation of the patentee. In simple terms, Article 31 regulates the issue of Compulsory Licences by states party to the TRIPS. Article 31(f) clearly provides that CLs shall only be issued “predominantly for…


Read More »
Patent

TRIPping Again: India’s D’oh(a) Moment at the 2011 TRIPS Council


In my previous post, I examined the eBay v. MercExchange injunction regime against the TRIPS standards for a compulsory licence. I continue that exercise here, analysing a statement made by the Indian delegation at the 2011 annual review of the Paragraph 6 system in the TRIPS Council. The Paragraph 6 system refers to the General Council’s 2003 resolution on paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration (not to be confused with the Doha Dream), which essentially consisted of a waiver of…


Read More »
Patent

TRIPping on Post-eBay Injunction Jurisprudence in the US


Introduction The right to exclude has historically been among the most fundamental attributes of a patent monopoly around the world. It is for this reason that injunctive relief plays a much greater role in patent law than it does elsewhere, relative to monetary compensation. Does a finding of patent infringement automatically entail an injunction against the infringer? At first glance, this question appears absurdly easy – if the essence of the patent monopoly is the right to exclude, then wouldn’t…


Read More »
Drug Regulation Patent

MCI Gives Generic Prescription A Shot in the Arm


Commentators have lamented the lack of a mandatory generic prescription regime in India, with some even pointing to a perceived nexus between pharmaceutical manufacturers (“innovator” companies, to be precise) and doctors, with the former offering incentives to the latter for prescribing branded drugs. Through a notification [MCI-211(2)/2016(Ethics)/131118] dated 21 September 2016, published in the Gazette of India on 8 October, the Medical Council of India has amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002. The amendment…


Read More »
Patent Trademark

Bottling Fame, Brewing Glory and Taxing the Transfer of IP Licences


A recently pronounced Bombay HC judgement is the latest in a long line of cases dealing with the taxation of licences to use intangible property, with the preceding chapter being written by the same court in Tata Sons v. State of Maharashtra. Given the number of sharply conflicting decisions at the High Court level, it is safe to say that the legal questions at issue have been the subject of as much jurisprudence as juris-imprudence in the past. We’ve covered Tata…


Read More »
Others

Assessing the consequences of TRIPS+ FTAs for India: TPP, TISA and RCEP (Part II)


In the previous post, I’d summarised my findings from a study of the TPP, the TISA and the RCEP and their impact on Indian/TRIPS IP and e-commerce norms. Here, I flag specific issues that merit urgent consideration. E-commerce While an important element of the TPP’s Digital Two Dozen (D2D) core principles is the removal of customs duties on all digital products (Article 14.3), this does not create any new international obligation for India. This is because India is a party…


Read More »
Others

Assessing the consequences of TRIPS+ FTAs for India: TPP, TISA and RCEP (Part I)


Several recent bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) appear to be exporting standards of IP protection that extend well beyond those prescribed by the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). These FTAs include the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In this two-part post, I have scrutinised the TPP, TISA and RCEP that deal with IP and the digital economy vis-a-vis…


Read More »
Copyright

Bombay HC pulls no punches, orders ISP to comply with John Doe


Over the last month, we’ve been tracking the Dishoom litigation in the Bombay High Court, a matter which may mark a paradigm shift in Indian copyright jurisprudence. In cases where plaintiffs approach the court for John Doe orders against unnamed online infringers, the Bombay HC imposed strict safeguards against overreach, holding that entire websites could not be blocked in situations where only particular URLs were found to be prima facie infringing. However, the website-wide scope of John Doe orders was only one infirmity in the current…


Read More »
Patent

Teva v. Merck – II: Division bench shoots down Teva, hints at patent linkage


In Part I, we went through the history of the litigation in the Delhi High Court between Teva and Merck over the former’s alleged infringement of the latter’s Sitagliptin patent (IN209816). In an order dated 30 May 2016, a division bench of Pradeep Nandrajog and Mukta Gupta, JJ. declined to interfere with the single judge’s listing orders, and directed that the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 4 be heard on the next date given by the single judge…


Read More »