Author name: Mathews P. George

Mathews is a graduate of West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He pursued LLM in 'IP and Competition Law' from the Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre (a joint collaboration of Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition, University of Augsburg, Technical University of Munich and George Washington University, Washington). His areas of practice include Technology Law in general (IPR, Competition Law, Data Protection Law etc) Corporate Law, Contract Law and Public Law (Constitutional Law and Criminal Law). He practises law and policy at both national and international levels. Presently, he is in Kerala. In addition to litigation before various courts in Kerala, he is also involved in various national and international policy and academic initiatives.

Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – III

/ By / Innovation, Patent

[* Long Post] Significance of ‘patent working’ norms I have already set the factual and theoretical background for this discussion. Patents are not ‘inherent’ rights enjoyed by an inventor. Whatever be the justifying rationale, it is a framework intended to result in ‘net’ benefits to the society. The Writ Petition rightly called it a “social bargain” wherein the benefits are expected to exceed the costs incurred by the society (in the form of a monopoly). As per the Patents Act, 1970, the patentee […]

Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – III Read More »

Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – II

/ By / Innovation, Patent

[ * Long post] Objective of this post Patent is not an ‘inherent’ right enjoyed by an inventor. This understanding is crucial for appreciating the relevance of ‘patent working’ norms. This post discusses some of the prominent justifications and their pros and cons. Barring the natural law justification (which is now considered to be a weak justification for patents), all the other justifications, in one way or another, revolve around the argument that benefits of patent regime outweigh its costs. Jurisprudential

Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – II Read More »

Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – I

/ By / Patent

In a case that will have major repercussions on the future of the patent and innovation ecosystem in India, the Delhi HC recently issued notice to the Union of India in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Others. The case deals with the failure to enforce statutory provisions relating to the disclosure as to how patentees have worked their inventions. This is a unique provision in the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (section 146(2)), and year after year, patentees are

Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – I Read More »

Attention Start Ups: Conference on legal and compliance challenges

/ By / Event

A quick tidbit regarding an exciting event which will be held later this week. As Uber’s (read here) and Ola’s (read here) tryst with the law has revealed, legal compliance can play a crucial role in the growth of a start-up. In particular, while a start-up is scaling up, it often comes under the radar of the law and the government and must be particularly careful about legal compliance. In order to discuss this extremely relevant topic, Anand and Anand

Attention Start Ups: Conference on legal and compliance challenges Read More »

Volt v. Bolt

/ By / Trademark

 At the outset, the Madras HC judgment in Wipro Enterprises Ltd v. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd deals with certain settled concepts. It, however, gives practical guidance vis-à-vis the expectation of Court on the quality of evidence which needs to be adduced at the interim stage.                                        Brief Facts The plaintiff, in the year 2012, conceived and adopted the mark “BOLTS” to sell

Volt v. Bolt Read More »

IPRs Figure Prominently in ‘Trade Policy Review’ of WTO

/ By / Others

[*Long Post] I shall deal with the recently released ‘Trade Policy Review’ (“Review”) of WTO which deals with IPRs in a great detail. In fact, the ‘level of detail’ in this Review is something which should make us aware that the “world is watching us closely”! Though the Review doesn’t criticize India’s extant IPR legal system as such (especially in the context of US position), it voices certain concerns and draws attention to certain lacunae and/or inefficiencies in the system.

IPRs Figure Prominently in ‘Trade Policy Review’ of WTO Read More »

Del HC judgment on SRF Foundation & Anr v. Ram Education Trust

/ By / Trademark

The point of law reiterated in this judgment is no longer res integra. However, from a pragmatic perspective, this judgment is a case-in-point on the implications of ‘delay’ in ‘passing off / trademark’ interim injunction applications (in spite of the existence of a strong case in favour of the plaintiff).The judgment also offers a discussion on the jurisprudential foundation of ‘interim injunctions’. Background The Delhi HC decided upon interim applications filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC

Del HC judgment on SRF Foundation & Anr v. Ram Education Trust Read More »

pic of magnifying glasses

Transparency and TPP negotiations

/ By / Copyright, Patent

“Transparency increases the cost of hiding the truth. More efficient interactivity exposes truths that used to be inexpensive to hide.” [“Extreme Trust” by Don Peppers & Marth Rogers] I would like to begin this post by sharing my thoughts on transparency. In simple terms, transparency is the revelation of what otherwise might have been concealed. It enhances trust in the people and institutions on which our futures depend. Transparency has various dimensions. It is a vital via media for achieving

Transparency and TPP negotiations Read More »

Making of National IPR Policy: DIPP responds to RTIs filed by CIS

/ By / Others

Centre for Internet and Society filed RTIs with DIPP regarding the “making” of IPR Policy and functioning of the Think Tank. DIPP responded to them. These are available here. RTI requests dealt with a) the process followed by the IPR Think Tank while framing the first draft of the Policy (released in December, 2014); b) details and documents of meeting held to draft the Policy; c) details and documents of all/multiple meetings held to draft the Policy and d) all

Making of National IPR Policy: DIPP responds to RTIs filed by CIS Read More »

Policy innovation and improvisation on pharmaceutical drug discovery

/ By / Data Exclusivity, Innovation

As I sit down to pen this post, I am well aware of the complex, heavily debated policy dimensions on incentivizing innovations in the pharmaceutical industry. There is no one absolute ‘right’ answer to the various dilemmas posed by this discussion. In fact, there are several answers. Each one is right in its own way. As I see it, the only way out is to ‘try out’ which, of course, entails the ability to ‘embrace’ risks. As Paulo Coelho said,

Policy innovation and improvisation on pharmaceutical drug discovery Read More »

Scroll to Top