Tag: compulsory license
December 14, 2020
Intellectual Property | Patent
Intellectual Property | Patent
Pandemics, Public Interest and Patent Infringement in I...
In patent law, there is a constant tug of war between the importance of incentivizing innovators and the need to ensure that consumers have access to innovations. The law reflects this tussle as well. But this constant striving to balance the rights between patentees and consumers is essential for the patent system to function and be meaningful to society. ......
May 1, 2020
Intellectual Property | Patent
Intellectual Property | Patent
Overcoming Pandemic Profiteering in Times of Crisis
Today, as the global scientific and research community doubles down on finding a potential drug or vaccine against the novel Coronavirus, the obvious question that arises is of access to affordable drugs and medical equipment. With the high investment required in drug discovery and pharmaceutical research generally, the debate naturally turns to the returns on such investment in times of a public health crisis as the one being faced today. This note seeks to understand if intellectual property (IP) protection will be a barrier to affordable drugs....
October 14, 2019
Intellectual Property | Patent
Intellectual Property | Patent
Bolar provision remains standing after Bayer challenge
The Delhi High Court recently adjudicated on the issue of whether generic companies can export patented products for experimental purpose, in an expansive interpretation of Section 107A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (the ‘Act’). Section 107A, which relates to what is referred to as ‘the Bolar Provision’, was introduced via the Patents Act (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999. The provision sought to ensure the prompt availability of patented products, particularly generic drugs, immediately after the expiry of the patent term....
March 7, 2019
Intellectual Property | Patent
Intellectual Property | Patent
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”....