Divij Joshi

Divij Joshi is a lawyer and tinkers in technology and policy. He tweets @divij_joshi.

Trademark

“Drugs Are Not Sweets” – Bombay HC Imposes Exemplary Costs for Pharma Trademark Infringement


In Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Curetech Skincare and Anr., Mr. Justice Kathawalla of the Bombay High Court imposed costs of 1.5 crores against the defendant found to be ‘habitually’ committing trademark infringement of pharmaceutical products. The decision is significant for the quantum of damages awarded and the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind the award of exemplary costs. Brief Background The dispute concerns Mumbai-based generics manufacturer Glenmark, and its product Candid – B (an anti-fungal cream). The principal defendant is Galpha…


Read More »
Copyright

SpicyIP Tidbit: Madras HC Upholds Copyright Claim on Film Title


Things tend to go sour when nobody watches the watchdog. This seems to be particularly true of our hon’ble courts when they act in ex parte or undefended suits. In the latest development on this front, the Madras HC, in M/s. Sathya Movies vs M/s.Suresh Production Entertainment Private Limited, has upheld the Plaintiff’s claim that it was entitled to the protection of its film title, ‘Naan Aanaiittaal’, which was registered with the Tamil Film Producers Council. Mr. Justice C. V….


Read More »
Patent

Philips SEP Judgement: India’s First Post-Trial SEP Judgement has Serious Flaws


Earlier, we covered Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta’s decision in Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. vs. Rajesh Bansal And Ors. where the Delhi High Court found certain local manufacturers of DVD players liable for infringing Philip’s patents, which it claimed were Standard Essential Patents. I pointed out that the judgement was flawed on several counts. Given the importance of the jurisprudence on SEPs, the Court’s judgement requires some deeper examination. ‘Essentiality’ and the (Absent) Claim Construction In determining infringement, the plaintiff adopted…


Read More »
Drug Regulation Patent

Pharma Update: Russia Grants First Compulsory License for Anti-Myeloma Drug Revlemid, As German Supreme Court Upholds CL for HIV Drug Isentress


In moves that should have significant global impact on public health, an Arbitration Court in Moscow, Russia, granted Russia’s first Compulsory License for Lenalidomide (trade name Revlemid). In a similar development this month, the German Federal Supreme Court upheld a preliminary Compulsory License granted by a lower court for the HIV drug Isentress. The Russian License Unlike in India, the Russian judiciary has the exclusive authority to issue compulsory licenses. The CL is an outcome of the suit filed in…


Read More »
Patent

Breaking: In India’s First Post-Trial Standard Essential Patent Judgement, Delhi High Court Finds Local Manufacturers Infringed Philips’ DVD SEP


Almost a year after it was reserved by the Delhi High Court, the first post-trial judgement by an Indian Court in a Standard Essential Patent-related suit was issued on July 12, 2018. In Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. vs. Rajesh Bansal And Ors., Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta delivered a positive finding of the ‘essentiality’ of Philips’ patent, and held that the defendants, local manufacturers, in manufacturing standard-compliant DVD players were infringing this patent. Background Plaintiff, in 1995, registered Patent No. 184753…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 30 – May 5)


Our thematic highlight of the week was the guest post by Ms. Simrat Kaur on the IFPI annual global music report and the state of the global recording industry. The post highlights the industry’s grouses about intermediary safe harbour laws leading to a value gap, which they are hoping to capitalize on by evolving new legal principles. Our topical highlight was Sreyoshi’s post on the final hearing in the infamous case of the Monkey’s Copyright. This appeal was an affirmation…


Read More »
Copyright

Oracle v Google – US Court of Appeals Rules Against Google’s ‘Fair Use’ of Oracle’s Java APIs


Another day, another multi-billion dollar judgement potentially hazardous to the software development community. In the latest round of the Oracle v Google dispute over the use of Java (Oracle) API’s in Android (Google), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the United States (CAFC) overturned the lower court’s jury verdict that Google’s use of Java APIs was fair, and remanded the case back to trial (for the third time) on damages that Google would have to pay –…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 8 -14)


In case you missed this week’s posts, don’t worry, here’s a roundup below – The topical highlight of the week is Prashant’s post on the long running dispute regarding the patentability of Monsanto’s BT Cotton. In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court denied Monsanto patent protection for its claim over a particular genetic sequence. The HC rejected the claim on the grounds that it was not patentable subject matter under Section 3(j), which prohibits the grant of patents for…


Read More »
Copyright

Supreme Court Affirms that Only ‘Government Works’ under the Copyright Act Qualify as ‘Protected Systems’ under IT Act


In B.N. Firos v State of Kerala and Ors., the Supreme Court of India, on March 27, held that only those ‘computer systems’ may be designated as protected system under the Information Technology Act, which qualify as ‘Government Works’ under the Copyright Act. Background The present dispute related to the ownership of copyright in software which was being used by the Government of Kerala for a project known as FRIENDS (Fast, Reliable Instant, Efficient, Network for Disbursement of Services). The…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (March 11 – 24)


The topical highlight for this fortnight has been Pankhuri’s post on the Delhi High Court’s judgement in Sphaera Pharma Pte. Ltd and Anr. v. Union Of India, where the Court reiterated that the Patents Act does not offer any scope for considering a request for patent examination filed beyond the prescribed period of 48 months from the date of filing of the application. In the present case, the plaintiff claimed that the request for examination was not properly uploaded although…


Read More »