Roche vs CIPLA: The Contours of Section 3(d)


The Roche vs CIPLA litigation gives us an excellent opportunity to examine the contours of section 3(d). Please read our previous posts, please see here. Section 3(d) reads as below: “the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in increased efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such…


Read More »
Copyright

Supreme Court on Copyrightability of Judgments: Guest Post


Pursuant to our earlier post on a Supreme Court case (EBC vs DB Modak) dealing with the copyrightability of court decisions/judgments, we bring to you a guest post by Yashaswani Kumar. A 4th year student at NALSAR, she has written an incisive analysis of the Supreme Court ruling. A Modicum of Flavour “The decision in the case of Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak sees the Supreme Court taking tentative steps in altering the jurisprudence surrounding the concept of originality…


Read More »

SpicyIP Jobs


NATIONAL INNOVATION FOUNDATION National Innovation Foundation (NIF), based at Ahmedabad, has been constituted as an autonomous registered society in February 2000 supported by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. Applications are invited for following posts : Chief Innovation Officer (CIO/CEO) National Coordinator–Intellectual Property Rights (NC-IPR) National Coordinator–Scouting & Documentation (NC-S&D) Finance-cum-Administrative Officer (F&AO) Innovation Officers at various levels and different functions (Scouting and Documentation; Value addition, Research & Development; Businesses Development; Communication; Media; Database Design; Computer Application;…


Read More »
Copyright

Are Indian Court Judgments Copyrightable?


In a very interesting copyright case, the Supreme Court of India recently ruled that there can be no copyright in the raw text of court judgments/decisions. Well, we don’t exactly need a court to tell us this, as section 52 (1) (q) of the Copyright Act makes this crystal clear. The real issue before the court was: how much of work ought one to do to on such “raw” judgments to make them copyrightable? Will mere copy-editing (the mere correction…


Read More »

USPTO Rejects Gilead’s Patents Covering Key HIV Drugs


In March 2007, PUBPAT (Public Patent Foundation) filed formal requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging four key HIV/AIDS drug patents held by Gilead Sciences, Inc. These patents relate to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Gilead markets TDF in the United States under the brand name VIREAD (and also as a part of its ATRIPLA combination product). As part of its requests, PUBPAT submitted prior art that the Patent Office did not review before granting the patents to…


Read More »

Roche vs CIPLA: Businessworld Article


Gauri Kamath of Businessworld writes a fascinating article on the CIPLA infringement strategy. See her report here, which I’ve copied below: Launch First, Fight Later “The Delhi high court is currently hearing a high-profile patents lawsuit that has the potential to change the rules of the game in India. In a first, Mumbai-based drug maker Cipla has launched a copycat or generic version of a drug with the full knowledge that the original has been patented in India. The product…


Read More »

Roche vs CIPLA: The Law on Temporary Injunctions


Feroz Ali, who runs pharmapatents wrote to let us know of an error in one of the cases we’d cited in our earlier posts on the captioned theme. We stated that one of the cases that denied a temporary injunction in a patent case (since the patent was relatively new and there was an invalidity attack) is “Periathambi v. Special Tahsildar, AIR 1965 Madras 327”. Unfortunately we got the citation right, but the case name wrong! The name of the…


Read More »
Copyright

Bollywood and Online Piracy


Last year we witnessed the first Indian case of copyright infringement against You Tube which was filed by T-Series. However I’m little surprised as to why there has been only one case against U-Tube so far especially when there have been several instances of copyrighted Bollywood content being uploaded onto You Tube. Americans on the other hand being the litigious society that they are, have been having a field day suing U-Tube for the copyright infringements. The biggest claim is…


Read More »

Roche vs CIPLA: Some Dates


Dr Gopakumar Nair, an expert on patent issues and founder of the reputed Patent Gurukul site has sent us some great details on the dates re: the patent applications in the Tarceva case. The dates are very critical to issues such as novelty, time for filing post grant opposition etc. He writes as below: “Indian Patent Application No. 537/DEL/1996 A filed on 13th March, 1996 has been granted as 196774 and published on 13th July, 2007 in the Official Journal…


Read More »

Roche vs CIPLA: Pricing Issues


Readers will recollect our earlier posts on the “pricing” issue in this patent litigation and our plea to disentangle “pricing” from “patentability”. A conflation in this regard will only lead to convoluted patent jurisprudence in this country. Does anyone know what the actual pricing is in the Tarceva case? News reports such as the Hindu and the Mint state the price of Roche’s drug is Rs 4800 per tablet, while CIPLA sells at Rs 1600. I’ve heard however that Abhishek…


Read More »