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.

Analysing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013

/ By / Uncategorized

[*Long post] I had earlier introduced Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013 (“Policy”).  I shall analyse the Policy in this post. An encouraging but incomplete policy document The Policy is quite an encouraging policy document. It marks a significant shift in the approach of the government vis-à-vis its earlier policies – Scientific Policy Resolution of 1958, Technology Policy Statement of 1983 and Science and Technology Policy of 2003. As I had stated earlier, the Policy comes in the light of […]

Analysing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013 Read More »

Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013 – II

/ By / Uncategorized

For ‘Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013-I’ see here For analysis, see here. Gaining Global Competitiveness through Collaboration The STI Policy, 2013 acknowledges open source discoveries as an “interesting innovation system”. Further, it recognizes that knowledge commons is an emerging theme for managing IPRs created through multi-stake holder participation. The policy intends to foster data sharing and access. The policy also intends to tap global resources including Indian diaspora for accelerating the pace of technology-led development. It envisages multi-sectoral

Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013 – II Read More »

Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation policy, 2013 – I

/ By / Uncategorized

I shall introduce the ‘Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013’ (“STI Policy, 2013”) which was recently unveiled by the Prime Minister at the 100th Indian Science Congress. I shall analyse the STI Policy, 2013 in a later post. [The STI Policy, 2013 is available here.] Background The STI Policy, 2013 sets out a significant shift in approach of the government. It is pertinent to take a quick look at the previous policies:       a) Scientific Policy Resolution of 1958 (“SPR,

Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation policy, 2013 – I Read More »

Filing rectification application under the GI Act, 1999

/ By / Uncategorized

[*Long Post] As you are aware of, rectification application can be filed under Section 27 of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”). I intend to examine whether the aforesaid provision allows filing of rectification application on the ground of public interest. I shall argue in affirmative relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Hardie Trading Ltd. and Anr. v. Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd. (“Hardie Trading Ltd”) and IPAB order in Payyannur ring [covered here]. Prashant

Filing rectification application under the GI Act, 1999 Read More »

Single Bench judgment in Star India set aside

/ By / Uncategorized

In its judgment dated 3rd December, 2012, the Division Bench of Delhi HC comprising of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Manmohan Singh set aside the Single Bench judgment dated 8th November, 2012 in Star India Pvt. Ltd v. Piyush Aggarwal  & Ors. on the ground of serious procedural flaws. [We blogged on the aforesaid Single Bench judgment here and here.] The Division Bench, vide its judgment, restored the civil suits along with all the pending applications which included the application

Single Bench judgment in Star India set aside Read More »

IPAB on Payyannur Ring

/ By / Geographical Indication

[*Slightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans (“Order”), decided on an appeal made against the order passed by the Registry on 14.07.2009  in opposition proceedings No. GIR/TOP 2/347/09 granting Geographical Indication registration of Payyannur ring to 1st respondent/ applicant, Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans & Development Society. The appellant had earlier filed writ petition in the Madras High Court for quashing the order of Registry and restraining

IPAB on Payyannur Ring Read More »

Internet Fraud: Bogus Open Access Journals

/ By / Uncategorized

Another ingenious internet fraud is on the rise – fraud committed in the name of Open Access (“OA”) journals. Unlike subscription-based journals, OA journals are those which are freely accessible online.  The business model revolves around the author-pay mode — where researchers pay for publishing their work. [The Hindu report is available here.]   Broadly speaking, the modus operandi is to send mails to researchers and scientists soliciting manuscripts. They try to entice researchers by keeping the processing fee low.

Internet Fraud: Bogus Open Access Journals Read More »

SC on the new drug policy

/ By / Uncategorized

The Supreme Court on last Wednesday gave the government a week to come up with a timeline for implementing its new drug-pricing policy. In the event of failure to comply with the Order, the Court will issue an interim order placing all the 348 medicines within the ambit of price-cap regime based on a product’s manufacturing cost. [See herefor Livemint report.] I blogged on the issue earlier. [See here.] The Group of Ministers (GoM), headed by Agriculture Minister Mr. Sharad

SC on the new drug policy Read More »

GoI criticised for failing to finalise the drug policy

/ By / Uncategorized

The Supreme Courtcriticised the government for failing to finalise the drug pricing policy which has been pending since 2003. [For Deccan Herald (“DH”) news report, see here] According to DH, the Court remarked that the issue which has been pending since 2003 was a “slur on the face of all stake-holders”. The Additional Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra reportedly submitted that the Group of Ministers (“GoM”) which discussed the proposed drug policy in its meetings could not arrive at a final

GoI criticised for failing to finalise the drug policy Read More »

‘A lawyer appearing before IPAB should wear the cap of an IP Practitioner’

/ By / Uncategorized

Justice Prabha Sridevan, Chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”), was interviewed by ‘Managing Intellectual Property’ [available here]. She made quite a few pertinent remarks on the functioning of IPAB, role of litigants in the system, her post-retirement plans etc. She rightly observed in the interview that the tribunal has started drawing greater international attention.  She exhorted the lawyers to approach IPAB in a different manner viz., by putting the cap of an IP practitioner and not by wearing

‘A lawyer appearing before IPAB should wear the cap of an IP Practitioner’ Read More »

Scroll to Top