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 role of the Examiner and the Controller in the Patent Office; Pages from History

/ By / Uncategorized

Given the intense debates we’ve been having on the state and status of the Patent Office staff, I thought it would be interesting to browse through the following pages from the historical, Biblical Ayyangar Committee Report on the ‘Revision of Patents Law’ submitted 51 years ago to the Central Government in the year 1959. Those of you who are aware of the Ayyangar Report will agree with my characterization of the report as ‘Biblical’. The fact that Justice Ayyangar has […]

The role of the Examiner and the Controller in the Patent Office; Pages from History Read More »

Guest Post: Vernor v. Autodesk Inc: Thumbs Up for Software License Agreements (SLAs)!

/ By / Uncategorized

Sai Vinod a 3rd year student at NUJS has sent in this very interesting guest post on the recent Autodesk judgment by the 9th Circuit Court. Guest Post: Vernor v. Autodesk Inc: Thumbs Up for Software License Agreements (SLAs)! In a dispute concerning the first sale doctrine in the context of software licensing agreements, the Ninth Circuit has overruled the decision of the District Court for Western District of Washington on which we have earlier blogged over here. The copy

Guest Post: Vernor v. Autodesk Inc: Thumbs Up for Software License Agreements (SLAs)! Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: DIPP invites applications for ‘Examiners’ posts; 25-10-10 deadline for applications

/ By / Uncategorized

After a significant debate on this blog on the shortage of examiners at the Patent Office, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Industry and Commerce has released an elegantly well drafted 46 pages notification inviting applications for the posts of Examiners at the Patent Office. (No surprise they took two years to come out with this – 46 pages!!!) In its notification the DIPP has announced a sector-specific intake and has announced the vacancies for each sector

SpicyIP Tidbit: DIPP invites applications for ‘Examiners’ posts; 25-10-10 deadline for applications Read More »

Is it lawful for Examiners to grant Patents under the Patents Act, 1970?

/ By / Patent

Earlier this year on the 3rd of August the Bombay High Court disposed a writ petition filed by one Bharat Bhogilal Patel, inventor who had been granted two patents by the Patent Office, Mumbai for the following inventions: (i) ‘A process of manufacturing engraved, design articles on metal or non-metal’ and (ii) ‘An improved engraving and marking machine with laser technology’. Apparently Mr. Patel had approached the Customs Commissioner to have his patent rights enforced under the IPR Enforcement Rules,

Is it lawful for Examiners to grant Patents under the Patents Act, 1970? Read More »

Trends in ‘Oppositions’ against Pharmaceutical Patents

/ By / Uncategorized

The amendments to the Patent Act, 2005 created a dual opposition mechanism before the Patent Office i.e. the pre-grant opposition mechanism and the post-grant opposition mechanisim. Thanks to the digitization of the Opposition decisions it is possible to analyze some basic trends in the strategies of the generic pharmaceutical industry in filing such oppositions. The analysis below pertains to only those oppositions which have been decided by the Patent Office and the accuracy is completely contingent on the patent office

Trends in ‘Oppositions’ against Pharmaceutical Patents Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Suo moto powers of the IPAB & the ‘Tirupati Laddu’ GI

/ By / Uncategorized

One our regular commentators Mr. Praveen Raj, a trademark/GI activist, had earlier petitioned the Intellectual Property Appellate Board to cancel the Tirupati Laddu GI. The full text of the petition which can be accessed over here, on his blog, lists out the grounds on which the GI may be cancelled. More interestingly Mr. Raj requested the IPAB to invoke its suo-moto powers under Section 27 of the GI Act. The IPAB however replied to Mr. Raj’s petition informing him that

SpicyIP Tidbit: Suo moto powers of the IPAB & the ‘Tirupati Laddu’ GI Read More »

‘Tis the season for migrations – Remfry & Sagar loses key partners to Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan

/ By / Uncategorized

In an interesting turn of events, both, MIP & Legally India have reported that, Delhi Based IP firm, Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, have poached two key partners from IP giant – Remfry and Sagar. The two partners are Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Head of Patents at Remfry & Sagar for over 13 years & Ms. Arpita Sawhney, Litigation Partner at Remfry & Sagar for over 5 years. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan is a combined Tax & IP firm which is currently

‘Tis the season for migrations – Remfry & Sagar loses key partners to Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan Read More »

SpicyIP Trivia: The ‘Mal’-factor of the Indian IP Scene

/ By / Uncategorized

During the course of a random discussion, with a friend, on prominent voices and faces on the Indian IP scene I discovered that a disproportionately large number of these prominent voices and faces were from ‘God’s own Country’ – Kerala. People from Kerala, are sometimes fondly referred to as ‘Mallus’ or ‘Mals’, after the language that they speak which is, Malyalam. When I was at NLSIU in Bangalore, we even had a ‘Mal Mafia’, in the senior batches, whose members

SpicyIP Trivia: The ‘Mal’-factor of the Indian IP Scene Read More »

Update on Bayer-Cipla patent infringement suit: Nexavar patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court goes directly to trial

/ By / Uncategorized

In a significant departure from the standard practice in Indian patent trials, Justice Ravinder Bhat, who is presiding over the Nexavar patent infringement suit filed by Bayer against Cipla, has ordered, on the 23rd of July, 2010, that the suit be expedited directly to trial. We had previously blogged on this case over here. In the normal course of events the Court would have first disposed the interim injunction application after which the matter would be directed to trial. This

Update on Bayer-Cipla patent infringement suit: Nexavar patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court goes directly to trial Read More »

Roche and Novartis, finally, manage to defend their patents in Oppositions filed by Cipla

/ By / Uncategorized

In a sign of the changing times, Swiss companies, Novartis and Roche have finally managed to defend their patents in oppositions filed by Cipla. While Novartis defeated Cipla in a pre-grant opposition against its patent application – 3003/CHENP/2004 for ‘inhibitors of tyrosine kinases’, Roche won a post-grant opposition against Cipla with respect to its patent bearing no. 208718 for a ‘Pharmaceutical Composition in solid unit dosage form’. For a concise, well written analysis of the Novartis decision, which was rendered

Roche and Novartis, finally, manage to defend their patents in Oppositions filed by Cipla Read More »

Scroll to Top