Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property

|

Stricter Timelines and an ambiguous Form 27 part of the...

The Patent Rules, 2003 are proposed to be amended by Draft Rule 21 Sub-rule (2) and Sub-rule (3), Draft Rule 131 Sub-rule (2), and updated Form-27. Draft Rule 21 Sub-rule (2) reduces the high cost previously borne by applicants for the translation of priority documents. This Draft Rule restricts the requirement for submitting verified English translations of priority documents in accordance with Rule 51bis.1(e) of regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). ...
|

Rules amended for Companies to avoid “similar” and “und...

Before applying for a company name in India, a stakeholder is required to ensure that the proposed name does not contain any word as prohibited under the Companies Act, 2013 (in Section 4(2) & (3)) read with the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 (Rule 8). This Rule 8 has been recently amended by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), Government of India, by its notification of 10th May 2019, to clarify issues relating to undesirable and similar names of the companies. ...
|

Commercial working statement proposed to be overhauled ...

In its latest proposed amendments to the Patent Rules, 2003, the government of India has proposed to overhaul the antiquated Form 27 (which seeks details of the commercial working of patents), among other procedural clarifications. ...
|

The Patentability of Substances Occurring in Nature

Patents are granted for inventions that are new, include an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. An element of human contribution and “inventiveness” are required for patentability. The body of scientific knowledge received by any generation is a combination of invention and discovery, but there is a fine line between the two, and the distinction is not always clear. In this note, we examine the patentability of discoveries in Europe, the United States, and India to understand this distinction in the context of “naturally occurring substances”. ...
|

Unpacking copyright and moral rights in translations

The Literature Nobel Prize Winner, Jose Saramago, from Portugal, is reported to have said, “Writers make national literature, while translators make universal literature.” Truly, some of the greatest works in literature, both Indian and foreign, would have remained alien to us had it not been for translations. Anna Karenina, Don Quixote, Madame Bovary, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Raag Darbari, One Part Woman… these are just some examples. As the Indian literary market gets increasingly flooded with translations into English, and cross-translations across other Indian languages, interesting questions emerge for both publishers and authors. ...
|

Patenting Antibodies in India

Over the years, a large number of patents have been granted for antibodies all over the world. The world is also seeing a shift towards biologic based drugs. Most of the top-selling drugs in 2018 were monoclonal antibodies with HUMIRA® leading the list. With the progress in the art and growing case law in this area, the criteria for patentability of antibodies are becoming increasingly strict, with restrictions on the scope of the claims. ...
|

Regulating Brand/ Trade Names for Pharmaceuticals

The branding of a new drug by pharmaceutical companies is a crucial decision for the success of that drug in the market. However, the present regulatory regime in India does not provide any rules or guidelines for selecting a brand/ trade name for a pharmaceutical drug in India. Often, the absence of such guidelines leads to fly-by-night operators or smaller traders attempting to brand their products as closely as possible to the trademark of a reputed drug, even if they do not share characteristics or have the same active ingredient(s). This creates confusion amongst health professionals and pharmacists alike, which further has the potential to endanger the lives of patients and consumers....
|

Expert evidence is essential for a patent challenge

The Madras High Court earlier this year rejected a writ petition filed against a patent owned by Kibow Biotech Inc. for a dietary supplement that aids in the carrying out of the kidney function, for reasons, among others, that there was no expert evidence led to support the case. The validity of the patent was challenged primarily under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, i.e., on grounds that it was “a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof or a process for producing such substance”....
| |

Govt reconsidering limits on royalty payouts to foreign...

The government of India is reportedly considering a proposal to once again introduce limits on the amount of royalty payable by Indian subsidiaries to their foreign parent firms for the use of trademarks and brand names, or for technical services. These limits were last applied in India nearly a decade ago. ...