KSR VS TELEFLEX AND PFIZER VS APOTEX: IMPLICATIONS FOR NOVARTIS LITIGATION IN INDIA

/ By / Patent

Its been a while since the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated Pfizer’s patents covering Norvarsc, one of their best selling drugs used by high blood pressure patients. Close on the heels of this important judgment that in some ways endorses a section 3(d) kind of approach (an issue pertinent to the ongoing Novartis litigation), comes another judgment, KSR vs Teleflex, where the United States Supreme Court raises the bar for “non obviousness”.As some of you may know, […]

KSR VS TELEFLEX AND PFIZER VS APOTEX: IMPLICATIONS FOR NOVARTIS LITIGATION IN INDIA Read More »

INDIAN MUSIC COMPOSERS : "INSPIRATION" OR "COPYING"?

/ By / Copyright

Strangely enough, as Mrinalini has been posting on youtube and copyright issues, I came across these youtube clippings of an interview dealing with the alleged “plagiarism in the Indian music industry”. I’ll briefly describe these interviews, not least because one is not certain when Youtube is likely to be put on notice that these are copyrighted clips. These clips are from an interview that was broadcast on CNBC TV 18 (talk about copyright and youtube!!) by the hard hitter, Karan

INDIAN MUSIC COMPOSERS : "INSPIRATION" OR "COPYING"? Read More »

A rose by any other name, speaks the same???!!!!

/ By / Uncategorized

A short synopsis of an interesting decision on patent law by a court in Bombay: Speaking Roses International Inc. v. Controller-General of Patents & Anr.(Misc. Petition No. 13/2006) Decision date: 12th February 2007 • Petitioners applied for a patent on 19.09.2002 for the method of providing an image on an organic product (flowers) however, the Respondent rejected the application by an order dated 19.04.2006.• The petition came up on board normally but the Respondents failed to appear despite service and

A rose by any other name, speaks the same???!!!! Read More »

You Tube and § 79 of the IT Act – A Second Look

/ By / Uncategorized

I was not really expecting any comments on the short note I posted last week on § 79 of the IT Act and Pawan Duggal’s comment regarding YouTube’s liability. However, I did get an interesting observation by email from Mathew Chacko, an intellectual property lawyer in Delhi. I quote from his email: “You Tube’s liabilities are probably going to originate in copyright law and a theory of network service provider liability under copyright law will probably be based on theories

You Tube and § 79 of the IT Act – A Second Look Read More »

"MASHELKAR COMMITTEE EFFECT" ON THE DATA EXCLUSIVITY DEBATE

/ By / Data Exclusivity

In a piece titled “Pharma firms will have to wait a while for data exclusivity norms”, the Economic Times states: “Call it the Mashelkar effect! The Satwant Reddy committee, which is examining whether MNCs should be allowed to guard their costly clinical data from local rivals, is unlikely to take a call on the issue in the near future. The decision has been taken considering the sensitive nature of the issue and the strong opposition NGOs and a section of

"MASHELKAR COMMITTEE EFFECT" ON THE DATA EXCLUSIVITY DEBATE Read More »

Compulsory Licensing and TRIPS compatibility

/ By / Patent

It seems like the Thai compulsory licensing controversy is not the only one doing the rounds. A less controversial one (as it doesn’t deal with public health) is a complaint by Philips that a compulsory license issued in Taiwan over its CD patents is not compatible with TRIPS. IP Geek reports: “The European Commission has launched an in-depth investigation into the WTO consistency of the granting of compulsory licenses by Taiwan for recordable compact discs (CDRs) under the Trade Barriers

Compulsory Licensing and TRIPS compatibility Read More »

You Tube and § 79 of the IT Act

/ By / Uncategorized

YouTube was recently reported as having removed world cup cricket video clips after the ICC accused it of copyright infringement. In the brief report, Pavan Duggal was reported as having said that “under Section 79, IT Act, network service providers (like Google, You Tube) shall be liable for all third party data or information made available.” The statement may be a mis-quote or a mistake of law. In either event, section 79 of the IT Act actually states the exact

You Tube and § 79 of the IT Act Read More »

Patents and Public Interest – Musings from the Thai Compulsory License Controversy

/ By / Patent

The conflict (or apparent conflict) between patent rights and public health once again came into the limelight with the Thai government granting compulsory licenses to three patented drugs. On November 29 last year, the Thai government made its first strike with the announcement that it was granting a compulsory license to the Government Pharmaceutical Organization of Thailand (Click Here) for production of Merck’s patent on Efavirenz (an AIDS drug sold as Stocrin). Following closely in line was the compulsory license

Patents and Public Interest – Musings from the Thai Compulsory License Controversy Read More »

RANBAXY vs PFIZER ("LIPITOR") SCORECARD

/ By / Uncategorized

I had posted on the Lipitor litigation sometime back and promised to come back with more analysis. The Lipitor litigation is unfortunately too complex and scattered to track. Here’s a helpful site that helps you track this. The IP Kat reports: “The Lipitor Scorecard is a popular feature of IP scholar and strategist Duncan Bucknell’s website. It charts the state of progress – and eventually the result – of the disputes between Ranbaxy and Pfizer over the Lipitor patent in

RANBAXY vs PFIZER ("LIPITOR") SCORECARD Read More »

Scroll to Top