The interpretation of the phraseology of Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 was undertaken in the last three posts. In this post, I intend to attempt to answer questions on what is the purpose served by the provision, because I’d like to cover as many bases as possible on this provision. More so, because a few comments to the first post (which the commentator appears to have retracted on his own) seemed to take the view that one is

In the last two posts, I took the view: 1. That Section 107A(b) does not refer to international exhaustion since it creates an exception from infringement for importation into India, of a good which is protected by a patent in India, from a  person who has been duly authorized to produce and sell or distribute the patented product in India.   2. This I did on the basis that “duly authorized under the law to produce and sell or distribute

In the last post, I had attempted to make sense of Section 107A(b) from a legal standpoint without being coloured by any politico-economic arguments. This does not necessarily mean that one is blind to the concept of purposive construction; that said, the written word of the law must be given “due” respect before we decide to make arguments based on what we think the law ought to be. I say this because I noticed in the comments to the last