Why did the Government of India oppose the ‘counterfeit drug’ definition proposed by IMPACT?

In July last year the ET reported that the Government, in a bid to boost the credibility of Indian generics in the international market, was proposing a new definition of what exactly constituted a counterfeit drug. This move may have been inspired by the efforts of the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT) to come up with a new definition of counterfeit drugs. IMPACT is an agency setup by the World Health Organization (WHO). A senior Health Ministry official was quoted as saying “It […]

Why did the Government of India oppose the ‘counterfeit drug’ definition proposed by IMPACT? Read More »

Roche Asked To Put on Hold its Infringement Suit by the SC

In the earlier post, the pre-grant objections to the Valganciclovir application of Roche were discussed (which had some really earthy and practical comments on interpretation of s.8 of the Patents Act, notably by Indian Patent Agent). According to news reports and updates by Lawyers Collective, the Supreme Court has ordered Roche not to pursue the patent infringement case against Cipla until such time the post-grant oppositions against the patent have been disposed off. The Court has asked the Controller to

Roche Asked To Put on Hold its Infringement Suit by the SC Read More »

Ducking TRIPS in India: Novartis "Glivec" Case and Section 3(d)

IPOsgoode just carried a guest post of mine featuring a recent paper on the “jurisdictional” dimensions of the Madras High Court decision in the Novartis case (dealing with the constitutionality and TRIPS compatibility of section 3(d)). IPOsgoode, the IP wing of the Osgoode law school (a leading law school from Canada), is becoming a force to reckon with in the international IP space and has excellent articles on a variety of contemporary IP issues. It is the brainchild of a

Ducking TRIPS in India: Novartis "Glivec" Case and Section 3(d) Read More »

Bayer vs UOI and Cipla: The Mint Reports on Government Apathy

Pursuant to our post lamenting government apathy in the controversial Bayer vs UOI/Cipla case that sought to introduce “patent linkage” in India, CH Unni of the Mint now reports: Centre faulted by experts on Bayer-Cipla patent case C.H. Unnikrishnan The Indian government may not be showing adequate interest in a litigation in the Delhi high court that involves a controversial patent linkage to drug approval, say experts. The lawsuit is based on a writ petition filed by Germany’s Bayer AG,

Bayer vs UOI and Cipla: The Mint Reports on Government Apathy Read More »

Pre-Grant Objections Against Valganciclovir Application: Were They Frivolous?

In quite a few posts earlier, both Mr.Basheer and Prashant have discussed the developments in the proceeding concerning the pre-grant opposition of Roche’s patent application for its anti-retroviral drug Valganciclovir, better known as Valcyte. In a brilliant post earlier, Prashant had discussed in sufficient detail the ruling of the Madras High Court that the petitioner NGOs were entitled to a hearing in the pre-grant opposition under s.25(1) and Rule 55 of the Patents Act. This post focuses on the grounds

Pre-Grant Objections Against Valganciclovir Application: Were They Frivolous? Read More »

PIRATE BAY: A SINKING SHIP FOR HOLLYWOOD? (PART II)

I would like to thank Question IPR for his/her comments on Part I of the post series and am reproducing the his/her first comment below for a better understanding of the law of secondary liability for copyright infringement in the U.S. Question IPR stated that, “Indirect infringement liability (Secondary liability for Copyright infringement) in the United States can be divided into three major headings as of today: · Contributory Infringement · Vicarious Infringement · Inducement standard [I disagree with him/her.

PIRATE BAY: A SINKING SHIP FOR HOLLYWOOD? (PART II) Read More »

Delhi HC: Guiding the way in copyright infringement cases

We have time and again, reported on various instances of copyright infringement. However, for only the second time, at least to this blogger’s mind, the Delhi High Court has gone ahead and taken the softer approach towards a possible infringers in view of how this may affect the academic performance of students! In Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge v. BD Bhandari (CS (OS) 1274/2004 of the Delhi High Court) pronounced in mid- January this year, the

Delhi HC: Guiding the way in copyright infringement cases Read More »

Bayer vs UOI and Cipla: A "Spurious" Tale

Following earlier posts on the Bayer vs Union of India (UOI)/Cipla writ proceedings before the Delhi High Court, let me bring to your attention another fallacious argument advanced by Bayer where they attempt to label all generic drugs as “spurious” drugs. Bayer’s writ petition states that Cipla’s generic version of Sorafanib, purported to be sold under the brand name “Soranib” would amount to a “spurious drug” under Section 17B of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This section provides as

Bayer vs UOI and Cipla: A "Spurious" Tale Read More »

Bayer vs UOI and Cipla: Patent Apathy by the Government?

In our last post, we bemoaned the fact that the government was not taking the Bayer writ seriously enough. This apathy caused Dilip Shah, Secretary General of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) to write a letter to the government, as below: (A similarly worded letter was addressed to Mr Ashok Kumar, Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals as well). To:Mr Naresh Dayal SecretaryDepartment of HealthMinistry of Health & Family WelfareNirman Bhawan, Room No. 149New Delhi 110 011 Dear Mr Dayal, Re: Delhi

Bayer vs UOI and Cipla: Patent Apathy by the Government? Read More »

Bayer vs Cipla: Attempting "Patent Linkage" In India

The writ petition filed by Bayer against the Union of India (UOI) and Cipla came up for hearing on the 17th, 18th and then the 25th of February. For those not familiar with this story, please see our previous post. In essence, Bayer filed a writ against the UOI, praying that the DCGI (Drug Controller General of India) be restrained from granting any drug approval to Cipla’s generic version of their patented drug, Sorefanib (sold as “Nexavar”). The key ground

Bayer vs Cipla: Attempting "Patent Linkage" In India Read More »

Scroll to Top