In case you missed this week’s posts, don’t worry, here’s a roundup below – The topical highlight of the week is Prashant’s post on the long running dispute regarding the patentability of Monsanto’s BT Cotton. In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court denied Monsanto patent protection for its claim over a particular genetic sequence. The HC rejected the claim on the grounds that it was not patentable subject matter under Section 3(j), which prohibits the grant of patents for…

The thematic highlight for this fortnight, is Rahul’s post on the recent Bombay HC judgment that held copyright registration mandatory for maintaining an action of infringement. Rahul notes the Court’s flawed reasoning that since, under section 50-A, registration is the only way to inform the public of copyright in a work, this is indicative of legislative intent to make registration mandatory. The Court also applied this reasoning to hold that several other provisions would be deemed unworkable if registration was…

The topical highlight for this fortnight has been Pankhuri’s post on the Delhi High Court’s judgement in Sphaera Pharma Pte. Ltd and Anr. v. Union Of India, where the Court reiterated that the Patents Act does not offer any scope for considering a request for patent examination filed beyond the prescribed period of 48 months from the date of filing of the application. In the present case, the plaintiff claimed that the request for examination was not properly uploaded although…

By way of a special report that I highly recommend to our readers, Prashant & Balaji brought us this week’s topical highlight. The report draws on a recent coverage by The Hindu reporting limited access to Bedaquiline, which has been touted to be the most promising drug for the treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and is patented by US based company, Janssen. Subsequently diverging from the Hindu report, Prashant and Balaji take us through their own research on the…

In case you missed out on this week’s posts at SpicyIP, have no worries, here’s a roundup of the last weeks highlights. Our topical highlight of the week is my post on the Madras HC’s fairly straightforward decision examining film title protection in the context of copyright law. The judgement also deals with the important issue of the scope of protection offered by so-called ‘title registration schemes’ run by film associations, and whether they are effective at all. I recommend…

Topical Highlight – Prashant reported on the recent repeal of the Copyright Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2012 by the Parliament. Setting the context with the help of certain case law and legislations, Prashant offers up two divergent interpretations of the effect of this repeal. He notes that one of these could be that the principal act, i.e. the Copyright Act, 1957 survives along with the amendments while the amending act has been repealed by the parliament. On the other…