Patent

Brin Panna Goes to Court- II


For those who came in late, here’s the story thus far. Before we continue with the story, I would strongly recommend reading Prashant’s brilliant post on the fundamentals of Indian patent litigation. The Story… ….And so Brin Panna, after having earned his patent on “Spin-ster” technology (which still cannot be presumed valid under Indian law) now finds himself knocking the doors of the High Court of Bhagyanagar in the year 2012, to seek remedy against infringement of his patent by…


Read More »
Patent

Brin Panna & The Jungle of Oppositions- I


For the purposes of this post, let’s have a few characters- Brin Panna is the protagonist and Peeve Jobs is the antagonist (Poltergeist, may be). And let’s call the story- “The Obvious Indian Patent Story” and this chapter of the story as “Brin Panna & The Jungle of Oppositions”… Brin Panna- The Ideal Indian Our hero Brin Panna swears by “Indian values” such as honesty, a Lutheran work ethic and progress through innovation. He runs a home-grown “swadeshi” entity fully…


Read More »
Patent

Clarification on Section 107A(b)


In my posts on Section 107A(b), I had given the example of compulsory license under Section 84 of the Patents Act to further my interpretation of the provision. Subsequent to Prashant’s  brilliant question, I realized my example was not entirely accurate, although that doesn’t take away from the logic of the interpretation I seek to explore. That said, the posts containing the example have not been modified, so that the train of logic followed and the example are there for…


Read More »
Patent

When Can One Raise the Defense “Under” Section 107A (b): Purposive Construction


The interpretation of the phraseology of Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 was undertaken in the last three posts. In this post, I intend to attempt to answer questions on what is the purpose served by the provision, because I’d like to cover as many bases as possible on this provision. More so, because a few comments to the first post (which the commentator appears to have retracted on his own) seemed to take the view that one is…


Read More »
Patent

Section 107A(b): A Preliminary Summary of Thoughts On International Exhaustion


In the last two posts, I took the view: 1. That Section 107A(b) does not refer to international exhaustion since it creates an exception from infringement for importation into India, of a good which is protected by a patent in India, from a  person who has been duly authorized to produce and sell or distribute the patented product in India.   2. This I did on the basis that “duly authorized under the law to produce and sell or distribute…


Read More »
Patent

Section 107A(b): Does It Really Endorse International Exhaustion?- II


In the last post, I had attempted to make sense of Section 107A(b) from a legal standpoint without being coloured by any politico-economic arguments. This does not necessarily mean that one is blind to the concept of purposive construction; that said, the written word of the law must be given “due” respect before we decide to make arguments based on what we think the law ought to be. I say this because I noticed in the comments to the last…


Read More »
Patent

Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act: Does it Really Endorse International Exhaustion?


In quite a few posts in the past, we have argued and counter-argued over and over again on the interpretation of Section 107A(b) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. For those who wish to understand the issues, please refer to this interesting article by Mr.Basheer and Mrinalini Kochupillai, which features some of the points raised on the blog earlier.   For the last 2 days (actually nights) now, I have been reading and re-reading Section 107A(b) to see if there’s…


Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court Denies Grant of Interim Injunction to Bristol Myers Squibb


Earlier this year in March, we had blogged on the dispute between Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Ranbaxy, where the Delhi High Court refused to grant an ex parte interim injunction against Ranbaxy. Instead, the Court issued notice to Ranbaxy and subsequently arguments on the application for interim injunction were heard. Yesterday, the Economic Times reported that the Court has rejected BMS’s application for interim injunction against Ranbaxy’s generic version of the drug Baraclude (Entecavir), which is used to treat…


Read More »

SpicyIP Review: Book on Valuation of IPR


Akshat Pande, Senior Associate and Head-IPR of SRGR Law Offices, has written a book on Valuation of Intellectual Property Rights published by Eastern Law House, Kolkata. Akshat is a company secretary and a practicing advocate. Following is a short note written by Mr.Pande reviewing his own book. The book is reasonably priced at Rs. 550. This is the first edition of the book and is probably among the first books in India on concepts and fundamentals related to valuation of…


Read More »
Innovation

Off-Topic: Research- What Does It Demand?


In the last post, I had penned a few rudimentary non-novel obvious thoughts on what it takes to nurture a culture of innovation based on Prof.Vijay Govindarajan’s (VG) work. In this post, I intend to delve deeper into one of VG’s recurring themes (“leitmotifs”) – absence of fear of failure. I had an interesting experience which I wish to draw from, to articulate better on this point.  (Disclaimer: This post could be slightly off-topic, with an extended introduction (“bhoomika”, if…


Read More »