After a series of overseas pharmaceutical companies, it is now the turn of an Indian pharmaceutical company to bear the brunt of Section 3(d). The relevant patent relates to Clopidogrel Bisulfate claimed by Cadila Healthcare, a pharmaceutical company based in Ahmedabad. A pre-grant opposition was filed by Glochem Industries, a Hyderabad based pharmaceutical company. The instant writ petition has been filed by Glochem Industries alleging misconstruction and misapplication of the law. The judgment followed the interpretation of Section 3(d) in

We bring yet another guest post by Mathews P. George, a fourth year student of NUJS. As posted by Prof. Shamnad Basheer, IPAB has again stayed the operation of Ramkumar’s patent covering dual SIM phones. I have argued in my earlier post that IPAB does not have the power to stay the operation of patent. In this post, I shall argue that the Order favouring the existence of such a power lacks logic and coherence. (Image from here). Background: The

As most of our readers may know Novartis has filed an appeal against the decision of the IPAB in the Glivec case. The decision of the IPAB is troublesome for several reasons which have already been listed out by Shamnad in one of his previous posts. One of the principle questions of law before the SC in this appeal is going to be the interpretation of the term ‘Efficacy’ in Section 3(d). The addition of this term in Section 3(d)