Shamnad Basheer

Shamnad Basheer

Prof (Dr) Shamnad Basheer founded SpicyIP in 2005. He is currently the Honorary Research Chair of IP Law at Nirma University and a visiting professor of law at the National Law School (NLS), Bangalore. He is also the Founder of IDIA, a project to train underprivileged students for admissions to the leading law schools. He served for two years as an expert on the IP global advisory council (GAC) of the World Economic Forum (WEF). In 2015, he received the Infosys Prize in Humanities in 2015 for his work on legal education and on democratising the discourse around intellectual property law and policy. The jury was headed by Nobel laureate, Prof Amartya Sen. Professional History: After graduating from the NLS, Bangalore Professor Basheer joinedAnand and Anand, one of India’s leading IP firms. He went on to head their telecommunication and technology practice and was rated by the IFLR as a leading technology lawyer. He left for the University of Oxford to pursue post-graduate studies, completing the BCL, MPhil and DPhil as a Wellcome Trust scholar. His first academic appointment was at the George Washington University Law School, where he served as the Frank H Marks Visiting Associate Professor of IP Law. He then relocated to India in 2008 to take up the MHRD Chaired Professorship in IP Law at WB NUJS, a leading Indian law school. Prof Basheer has published widely and his articles have won awards, including those instituted by ATRIP and the Stanford Technology Law Review. He is consulted widely by the government, industry, international organisations and civil society on a variety of IP issues. He also serves on several government committees.

Innovation Patent

The Sovaldi Saga: A “Novel” Non-Obvious Standard?


In a previous post, I’d promised to bring a more detailed analysis of the problematic patent decision in the Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) post, wherein Gilead won a hard fought patent battle against some 8 odd opponents. Apart from the rather thin analysis on section 3(d) which I highlighted, the Deputy Controller also appears to have conflated the novelty and inventive step test frameworks. Essentially, he’s imported the “novelty” test framework into the “non obvious” or inventive step analysis. Or pioneered a…


Read More »
Innovation Patent

The New IPR Policy: A Painful Paradox!


Swaraj recently announced the piloting of a new Indian IPR policy, found here on the DIPP website. In this Hindu editorial, I take issue with a fundamental flaw permeating this policy, namely the assumption that IP is an end in itself and we must notch up more IP registrations for the mere sake of it. Given this fundamental flaw, the policy makes a number of empirically unsound assertions, such as a near compulsion for publicly funded scientists to register all their…


Read More »
Innovation Patent

Breaking News: Gilead Wins First Round, as Sovaldi Patent Oppositions Dismissed!


After a long and tortuous set of proceedings involving the Indian patent office and the Delhi high court, the final decision in the Sovaldi opposition case just issued. The Deputy Controller handed down a clear victory to Gilead, dismissing the various contentions raised in the various oppositions that had been filed against the patent application (as noted in an earlier post, about 7-8 oppns were filed by different parties). I’ve taken only a quick look at the order by the…


Read More »
Patent

Who am I: Pondering the (Existential) Puzzle of the Patent Office


  Who am I? A question that has puzzled philosophers for centuries. A question that will continue to intrigue us till the end of time. A question that is beginning to haunt our very own patent office. For if recent whisperings are anything to go by, a writ petition is slated to be filed by a group of patent officials urging that they ought to be considered as “scientists”. And not just as mere administrative/executive agents of the government of…


Read More »
Copyright Others

Apocalyptic Arbitration of IP Disputes?


And Justice Patel holds sway yet again with his robust reasoning and formidable flair!  Ruling (in effect) that:  Legal claims arising from IP licensing (and other commercial) transactions are essentially “in personam” disputes. There is nothing in Indian law which ousts such disputes from arbitration. Put another way, these are perfectly “arbitrable” disputes. And if the parties had mutually agreed to arbitrate such disputes, they must necessarily follow through on this contractual commitment. And cannot rush to court at the…


Read More »
Others

Welcoming our Second SpicyIP Fellow This Year


After Rahul Bajaj, I have great pleasure in welcoming our second SpicyIP fellow for this year: Ritvik Kulkarni. We picked him based on the commendable quality of his writings and analysis, evidenced in these posts here, here and here. Ritvik is a 4th year student reading law at the ILS Law College, Pune. His interest in IP began when he chose a copyright case for the Novice Intra-College Moot. It has only risen ever since. In 2015, Ritvik became the…


Read More »
Patent Publication

Specialised IP Courts: A Global Perspective from the ICTSD


In a number of earlier posts (here, here, here and here), I tackled the issue of specialised IP courts in India. All of these were part of a more comprehensive piece for the ICTSD which just released its report on specialised IP courts. The lead paper is by the prolific Professor Jacques de Werra, followed by country specific analysis as below: Brazil (Denis Barbosa/Pedro Barbosa); China (Hong Xue); India: Shamnad Basheer; Uganda (Susan Strba) Here is an introductory note to this study from…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Breaking News: Delhi High Court Refuses to Stay Anti-Competitive Investigation Against Ericsson


In a fairly exhaustive and well reasoned decision, Justice Vibhu Bakhru ordered today that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can continue its investigation into Ericsson’s alleged anti competitive practices. This investigation pertains to the alleged abusive enforcement of Ericsson’s standard essential patents (SEP) against a host of Indian smartphone manufacturers, such as Micromax and Intex. Background As we’d noted in our previous posts on this issue, both Micromax and Intex had complained to the CCI that Ericsson was abusing its dominant…


Read More »
Patent

Roche vs Cipla at the Supreme Court: Technical Expertise?


We’ve been given to believe that the Roche vs Cipla appeal came up at the Supreme Court today. Here is what a friend of SpicyIP just wrote in: “The matter came up today before Justice Gogoi and Justice Pant. Cipla tried to argue that some aspects of the matter require expert assistance, and hence, requested the court appoint a technical expert as per Section 115. Although the Bench seemed inclined to appoint one, it exercised restrain since at least 4 experts…


Read More »
Patent

Patent Pledge: Caving in on Compulsory Licensing?


Caving in on compulsory licensing? And pledging away public health safeguards? If the Indian governments’ alleged under-the-table assurance to USIBC (and other US industry groups) that it will not invoke compulsory licenses (CL’s) anymore (save for public non-commercial use) is truly true, then we have a lot to worry about! Particularly since a compulsory licensing determination vests largely in the control of the Controller (of Patents), a functionary fully beholden to the government…..those that struck a different chord such as…


Read More »