Debating the law of patent opposition: An appeal by any other name would smell just as sweet?

/ By / Patent

As our regular readers are aware, we have done several posts on the Patent Office, the Patent Office procedures, and more recently decisions of Courts that affect the Patent Office procedure. The UCB Farchim decision delivered by Justice S. Muralidhar is one of them [UCB Farchim SA Vs. Cipla Ltd & Others (MANU/DE/0297/2010)]. While I will not go into a more detailed analysis of the order (that has already been done here, here and here– phew!), I will paraphrase the […]

Debating the law of patent opposition: An appeal by any other name would smell just as sweet? Read More »

M.S.M. Satellite v. Star Cable Network: Piracy receives yet another ‘interim’ blow

/ By / Uncategorized

(Image taken from here) In the case of M.S.M. Satellite Singapore Pte Ltd. v Star Cable Network & Others [F.A.O. (OS) 211/2010] the Appellant M.S.M. had a wholely-owned-subsidiary Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd., which in turn had a distributor M.S.M. Discovery Pvt. Ltd., having the exclusive distribution rights over the Sony Set Max Channel in India. The Appellant had acquired “entertainment software” for distributing and broadcasting signals of channels such as Sony Entertainment (Max and SAB) and had also signed

M.S.M. Satellite v. Star Cable Network: Piracy receives yet another ‘interim’ blow Read More »

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd: Jurisdiction ‘Designed’ to err?

/ By / Design

(Image taken from here) This case involves an appeal filed against an order of the Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata under Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, canceling registered designs for “Insecticide Coil” in Class 12 belonging to the Respondent Reckitt Benckiser. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Delhi High Court, wherein the appeal had been filed, had the jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Appellant was a company against whom the Respondent had brought a

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd: Jurisdiction ‘Designed’ to err? Read More »

Guest Post on the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010 – Cover Recordings: Is it the same version?

/ By / Copyright

Neel Mason, Managing Partner of Mason & Associates, who has previously blogged for us, over here, has sent us this equally insightful piece on the proposed amendments to ‘Cover Recordings’ in the Copyright Act, 1957. For those of you familiar with the infamous Section 52(1)(j) will agree that it is probably one of the most confusing provisions with a seriously troubling history. For you previous stories on the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010, please click here. Cover Recordings : Is it

Guest Post on the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010 – Cover Recordings: Is it the same version? Read More »

Continuing the post-mortem on the Patent Office’s Order in the Valcyte case: The workings of the Opposition Board

/ By / Uncategorized

In response to my earlier post on the procedural issues in the Valcyte post-grant opposition I received unconfirmed information, from parties familiar with the matter, that the recommendations of the Opposition Board were not even made available to the parties. I would be grateful if we could get a confirmation on that from parties who participated in the matter Image from here. Title of the work: The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp; Artist: Rembrandt. A musical accompaniment (Bach’s Tocatta

Continuing the post-mortem on the Patent Office’s Order in the Valcyte case: The workings of the Opposition Board Read More »

Guest Post: The Impact of the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010 on Copyright Societies

/ By / Copyright

Neel Mason,a Managing Partner of Mason & Associates, with over 13 years of practice in IP matters has written for our readers, this excellent guest-post on the impact of the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010 on Copyright Societies. A must read for all those interested in the wide-ranging amendments proposed to Copyright Societies. The Impact of the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010 on Copyright Societies byNeel Mason One of the significant developments under the proposed amendments is the change that will be

Guest Post: The Impact of the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010 on Copyright Societies Read More »

Consilience 2010

/ By / Uncategorized

A National Conference on Internet intermediary liability in India – organized by the Law and Technology Committee of the National Law School of India University. Date: 29th and 30th May 2010 Venue: Taj Residency, Bangalore, India Key Speakers: Gulshan Rai, Indian Computer Emergency Response TeamG.R. Raghavender, Registrar of Copyrights and Deputy Secretary, MHRD, Govt. of IndiaWendy Seltzer, Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard UniversityGavin Sutter, Lecturer in Law, Queen Mary University of Law, University of London.Sunil Abraham, Executive

Consilience 2010 Read More »

Suggestions invited by the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 by the Standing Committee on HRD

/ By / Uncategorized

In a rather welcome move, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development has extended an invitation to all to make constructive and useful suggestions to be considered for incorporation in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010. The Bill that has been introduced in the Rajya Sabha and is pending there at present, has been referred to the Standing Committee, headed by Shri Oscar Fernandes, MP, Rajya Sabha for examination and report. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce much-needed

Suggestions invited by the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 by the Standing Committee on HRD Read More »

Raising the bar for post-grant oppositions: Lessons on procedure and evidence post the Valcyte ‘post-grant opposition’

/ By / Patent

The recent decision of the Patent Office in the post-grant opposition against Roche’s patent for Valcyte has spurred some interesting discussions on this blog. Most of these discussions, however, have centred on an analysis of the decision from a pure patent law perspective. In this post I would like to raise some policy and practical questions on the issues of procedure and evidence that are followed in post-grant oppositions. Before that however I would like to briefly comment on the

Raising the bar for post-grant oppositions: Lessons on procedure and evidence post the Valcyte ‘post-grant opposition’ Read More »

Delhi High Court refuses to give the interim nod to Noddy.

/ By / Trademark

The Delhi High Court was recently called upon to decide what seems like a fairly straightforward case of trademark infringement and passing off, for an extremely well known mark “NODDY”- the same having been made famous by Enid Blyton’s popular books for children.(and being a personal favourite of this blogger as well). The factual matrix of the case very simply is as follows: (Image from noddy.com) – The Plaintiffs are the global owners of the trademark rights for the mark

Delhi High Court refuses to give the interim nod to Noddy. Read More »

Scroll to Top