Author name: 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).

The Problematic Advocacy that Portrays Bedaquiline as a Wonder Drug

/ By / Drug Regulation

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 […]

The Problematic Advocacy that Portrays Bedaquiline as a Wonder Drug Read More »

A Reply to Anand Grover on the Bedaquiline Issue

/ By / Drug Regulation

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.

A Reply to Anand Grover on the Bedaquiline Issue Read More »

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

/ By / Overlaps in IP, Patent, Plant Variety Protection

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

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

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

/ By / Patent, Plant Variety Protection

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

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

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

/ By / Biological Diversity

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

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

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

/ By / Overlaps in IP, Patent, Plant Variety Protection

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

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

Guest Post: Ferrero Rocher v. Ruchi International: Another Merited but HUL-less Trademark Damages Award by the Delhi High Court

/ By / Trademark

The damages jurisprudence of the Delhi High Court in IP cases has been a problematic area for several reasons that we have discussed on this blog. In this guest post, Eashan Ghosh takes apart a recent judgment of the Delhi High Court that awarded damages of Rs. 10 lakhs to Ferrero Rocher. Eashan has been in practice as an intellectual property advocate and consultant in New Delhi since 2011, and also teaches a seminar on intellectual property law at National

Guest Post: Ferrero Rocher v. Ruchi International: Another Merited but HUL-less Trademark Damages Award by the Delhi High Court Read More »

DIPP Invites Applications from Universities for Hosting Chairs on IP Law – Deadline is March 31, 2018

/ By / Others

The DIPP has announced a new ‘Scheme for Pedagogy & Research in IPRs for Holistic Education and Academia (SPRIHA)’ inviting applications from all universities to host Chairs on IP law. The deadline for applications is March 31, 2018. This scheme replaces the earlier scheme run by the Ministry of HRD, which was called the Central Scheme of Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. The earlier scheme was fairly successful in the field of IP education in the sense that

DIPP Invites Applications from Universities for Hosting Chairs on IP Law – Deadline is March 31, 2018 Read More »

Finally, The Hindu Acknowledges the Clinical Trials Issues Regarding New TB Drugs but through Rose-tinted Glasses

/ By / Drug Regulation

The Hindu published yet another story in today’s edition on the issue of access to the new TB drugs like bedaquiline and delaminid. We’ve been tracking The Hindu’s coverage of this issue on the blog over here, here and here. Unlike the earlier reportage, The Hindu has finally acknowledged some of the issues that we have flagged relating to safety and efficacy of both drugs, given pending clinical trials. Today’s report notes that both drugs “are yet to pass large-scale

Finally, The Hindu Acknowledges the Clinical Trials Issues Regarding New TB Drugs but through Rose-tinted Glasses Read More »

How Does Inclusion of Patented Drugs in a WHO EoI Make Them More Affordable?

/ By / Patent

Over the last week, The Hindu has been reporting on the issue of access to two new TB drugs called bedaquiline and delaminid. As Balaji and I have pointed out in our last two posts on SpicyIP, there are serious issues with both stories that The Hindu published on March 3, 2018 and March 4, 2018. A third story published in today’s edition of the paper, titled “WHO launches plan for cheaper TB drugs” is with regard to a recent

How Does Inclusion of Patented Drugs in a WHO EoI Make Them More Affordable? Read More »

Scroll to Top