Innovation Patent

The India Innovation Index 2019 – Great Start, But Why Hide Section 3(d) and CLs in It?

by
Leave a Comment

The 7 pillars that it refers to are: Innovation input aka 'enabler' pillars: (1) Human Capital, (2) Investment, (3) Knowledge Employment, (4) Business Environment, and (5) Safety and Legal Environment; and Innovation output aka 'performance' pillars: (1) Knowledge Output and (2) Knowledge Diffusion. While the report 

On October 24th, the Niti Aayog released the first edition of the India Innovation Index (III). The Institute for Competitiveness was the knowledge partner for this endeavour. After years of various other global and pseudo global innovation (and IP) indices, it is a welcome development to see a national index that examines innovation within the country. It’s a 250+ page document with a substantial amount of data and analysis, as well as a large number of (very useful) graphical representations,…


Read More »
Plant Variety Protection

Plant Varieties Act: Misunderstood and Misapplied (Part II)

by
Leave a Comment

In Part-I of this three-part post, I provided a brief summary of the compound system of registration for parents and hybrids, created under the Public Notice 01/2019 of the PPV Authority. I had offered my view that the notice is ultra vires as far as it affects the term of protection for hybrids. I had ended it by noting prima facie that the notice may also appear ultra vires as far it links the eligibility criteria between parents and hybrids,…


Read More »
Trademark

Place the (Trade Marks) Act Before the Rules: Del HC Directs Registry to Record Grounds of Refusal of Applications

by
Leave a Comment

In a much-lauded decision, Justice J. R. Midha of the Delhi High Court has made it easier and quicker for applicants to appeal a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks arising from a refusal or partial acceptance of a trademark. This decision arises from a writ petition (Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v. Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks & Anr) that challenged the non-speaking orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks while refusing trademark applications. The petitioner,…


Read More »
Others

Justice Pratibha Singh Demands a Reply from the Government of India on the Dysfunctional IPAB – IP Bar Continues to Be Mute Spectator

by
1 Comment

In a sharply worded order passed last week, Justice Pratibha Singh of the Delhi High Court has made scathing observations regarding the dysfunctional Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and has demanded answers from the Secretary of the DIIPT on the state of affairs at the IPAB. The tribunal is empowered to hear appeals against orders of the IP Office, as well as the power to hear revocation petitions against trademark and patent matters as well as fix royalty rates under…


Read More »
Plant Variety Protection

Plant Varieties Act: Misunderstood and Misapplied (Part I)

by
2 Comments

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPV Act) is probably one of the least understood IP laws in this country. Arbitrary and ultra vires actions of the PPV authority certainly don’t help the cause, irrespective of whether the motive is right or wrong. In this case, I am referring to Public Notice 01/2019 published in May 2019 and clarified in a certain meeting with stakeholders in August 2019. To the best of my knowledge, there is…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 14-20)

by
Leave a Comment

Topical Highlight Prashant wrote a post on an order passed by the Delhi HC concerning the marketing of a biosimilar of the breast cancer drug Herceptin by Reliance Life Sciences. Genentech, which owned the erstwhile patent for Herceptin, filed a suit against Reliance claiming that their drug did not comply with Guidelines for Biosimilars and hence could not claim to be as efficacious as the drug sold under the Herceptin brand. In this appeal, the Delhi HC overturned the decision…


Read More »
Copyright

SpicyIP Fellowship 2019-20: Do Not ‘Broadcast Yourself’ over Trivial Claims – Applying the De Minimis Standard to Copyright Claims on YouTube

by
Leave a Comment

We’re pleased to bring to you a guest post by our fellowship applicant, Antony Moses. Antony is a 4th year student at NUALS, Kochi. Do Not ‘Broadcast Yourself’ over Trivial Claims: Applying the De Minimis Standard to Copyright Claims on YouTube Antony Moses Recently, YouTube made changes to its copyright enforcement policy. The new policy prevents copyright owners from making use of the “Manual Claims” tool to claim copyright infringement for: Short song clips (eg: 5 Secs of a song)…


Read More »
Innovation Patent

(Nobel) Prizes and Patents: Kremer and AMCs

by
Leave a Comment

News clipping with text quoting Abhijit Banerjee, "Yes. It was very early in the morning. I’m not an early morning person. I figured it would be an assault to the system if I don’t continue my sleep"

As readers know by now, the Nobel Prize in Economics (officially known as “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”) went to Esther Duflo, Abhijit Banerjee and Michael Kremer for their work in development economics. All three have done remarkable work and several sites have discussed this in varying degrees of detail as a web search will show (for eg: do check the Marginal Revolution blog which has listed out the various papers done by…


Read More »
Copyright

Broadcasting, Internet and Section 31D of the Copyright Act

by
2 Comments

We’re pleased to bring to you an insightful guest post by Jagdish Sagar, an independent lawyer practicing largely in the field of copyright and entertainment law in Delhi, on the (in)applicability of the statutory licensing scheme under Section 31D of the Copyright Act to internet broadcasting. Mr. Sagar was formerly a partner at Anand and Anand till 2011. Prior to that he was a civil servant till 2004. During his service with the Central Government he served as the Joint…


Read More »
Drug Regulation Others Patent

Reliance Life Sciences Scores Minor Victory in Continuing Litigation over Trastuzumab Biosimilars

by
1 Comment

An appeals bench of the Delhi High Court finally heard and disposed, last month, an appeal filed by Reliance Life Sciences in 2016, against an order that Justice Manmohan Singh had delivered in a lawsuit filed by Genentech. Since this is a strange case, it is necessary to recap the origins of this lawsuit. Around 2013, Biocon, Mylan and Glenmark were circling around Genentech’s patents and pending patent applications over the biologic Trastuzumab, that is sold under the brand name…


Read More »
  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5
  8. 6
  9. 7
  10. 8
  11. 9
  12. ...
  13. 533