Prashant Reddy

Prashant Reddy

T. Prashant Reddy graduated from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, with a B.A.LLB (Hons.) degree in 2008. He later graduated with a LLM degree (Law, Science & Technology) from the Stanford Law School in 2013. Prashant has worked with law firms in Delhi and in academia in India and Singapore. He is also co-author of the book Create, Copy, Disrupt: India's Intellectual Property Dilemmas (OUP).

Copyright

In A Blow to Creative Industry, Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Rule 56 etc. of Copyright Rules, 2013

by
1 Comment

In a judgment delivered on May 28, 2018 (and which slipped under the radar until Shamnad was alerted to it), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutionality of some provisions of the Copyright Rules, 2013 that were challenged by Anand Bhushan of Pitambar Publishing Co. Ltd. Originally the petitions filed by Mr. Bhushan in 2013 challenged several provisions of the Copyright Act and Copyright Rules. As the matter lay pending, the scope of the constitutional…


Read More »
Others

Notes from the WIPO-WTO colloquium for Teachers of Intellectual Property from Developing Countries and Countries in Transition

by
1 Comment

Last month, I had the opportunity to attend the colloquium for IP teachers from developing countries that is organized jointly by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The event brings IP teachers from almost 30 different developing countries to Geneva, Switzerland, at the expense of WIPO-WTO for a rigorous and fun, 10 days event. The colloquium is a rare opportunity to meet IP academics from developing countries and hear about their national experiences in the…


Read More »
Patent

New Law to Hardcode Public Interest into Injunction Jurisprudence

by
7 Comments

The upcoming session of Parliament may see the passage of a legislation that will have the effect of hardcoding ‘public interest’ into Indian injunction jurisprudence. The Specific Relief (Amendment) Bill, 2017 which has already been passed in the Lok Sabha is the offspring of a report submitted by a committee of experts which is yet to be released to the public. The Law Ministry never conducted a public consultation on the bill and the Lok Sabha passed the bill with…


Read More »
Patent

RTI application regarding CL/VL status for bedaquiline gets transferred 3 times with no information provided

by
Leave a Comment

On March 4, 2018 the Hindu published a frontpage news report on bedaquiline, the new drug that has shown promise in treating multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). While we have written extensively on other aspects of bedaquiline, the one issue that we have not commented on so far is the reporting in the Hindu on the compulsory licensing/voluntary licensing for the patents covering bedaquiline. The Hindu’s report made two assertions. The first assertion was that a panel headed by Dr. Soumya…


Read More »
Drug Regulation

The Problematic Advocacy that Portrays Bedaquiline as a Wonder Drug

by
Leave a Comment

On June 22, 2018 the Wire re-published my last piece, along with a rejoinder by Anand Grover, in our ongoing debate on the manner in which Bedaquiline was approved by the DCGI after waiving Phase III clinical trials. Grover ends his piece with the following dramatic question: “The question is, if the use of bedaqualine is going to cure two out three persons, and in its absence, they would face certain death, would any reasonable medical person withhold that drug…


Read More »
Drug Regulation

A Reply to Anand Grover on the Bedaquiline Issue

by
1 Comment

In a piece published on June 13, 2018 on the Wire, Anand Grover takes issue with several pieces that I have written regarding the approval of bedaquiline, a new drug meant to treat a certain type of multi drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR). Surprisingly, he doesn’t refer to my 6th piece on the issue, published on Newslaundry, where I discuss the law on clinical trials. While I’m glad that we are debating this issue, I disagree with Grover on multiple issues….


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent Plant Variety Protection

Can Monsanto’s Invention be Protected As a Plant Variety and Can It Seek Benefit-Sharing From Nuziveedu?

by
1 Comment

One of the central planks of Nuziveedu’s defense in its ongoing litigation against Monsanto, that we’ve blogged about over here and here, is its claim that Monsanto’s invention is nothing but a “transgenic plant” with increased insect resistance and that the same could be protected as a “plant variety” under the Plant Variety Protection & Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (PVPFRA). As discussed earlier, this characterization of Monsanto’s claim may not be accurate but it seems to have been accepted by…


Read More »
Patent Plant Variety Protection

The Issue of Claim Construction Will be Key to the Monsanto-Nuziveedu Litigation before the Supreme Court

by
Leave a Comment

As expected, the judgment of the Division Bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court in the Monsanto v. Nuziveedu litigation was admitted by the Supreme Court last week and the case is now slated for a hearing in July sometime. The bench of two judges hearing the matter refused to grant a stay on the operation of the DB’s judgment. While I don’t (yet) have access to the pleadings, I’m told that Monsanto’s legal team is now disputing the extent…


Read More »
Biological Diversity

Patanjali’s Tryst with the Biological Diversity Act – Is It Liable to Pay for Using Biological Resources?

by
1 Comment

The Business Standard recently reported that Baba Ramdev’s firm Patanjali has run into trouble under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and is challenging demands from state biodiversity authorities that it share its revenues with farmers whose biological resources it uses. The report is behind a paywall and Business Standard’s subscription policy requires an automatic renewal being charged to credit cards because of which I refuse to subscribe to the service. Nevertheless, the headline gives enough information to discuss the mounting…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent Plant Variety Protection

Delhi High Court’s Judgment in Monsanto v. Nuziveedu Delivers a Deadly Blow to the Agro-biotech Industry

by
1 Comment

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently pronounced its judgment in the long running litigation between Monsanto and Nuziveedu. The present judgment was delivered in cross appeals filed by both parties against the order of a single judge of the Delhi High Court that was delivered last year. To describe the judgment briefly, the court has delivered a knock-out punch to Monsanto, by declaring invalid its patent for Bt. Technology because Section 3(j) of the Patents Act prohibited…


Read More »
  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5
  8. 6
  9. 7
  10. 8
  11. 9
  12. ...
  13. 75