Few provisions in the entire canon of global intellectual property law have attracted as much sustained attention, controversy and scholarly debate as Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. In the two decades since India inserted this provision into its patent statute as part of the 2005 amendment that brought the country into compliance with […]
Section 3(d) and the Evergreening Debate in Indian Pharma Patents Read More »
Supreme Court of India | Decided: 12 September 2018 Civil Appeal No. (arising from Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court) Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1846 Background Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, the plaintiff and respondent before the Supreme Court, is the registered
Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited Read More »
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 28 August 2009 CS (OS) No. 930 of 2009 Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar Citation: (2009) 41 PTC 260 (Del) | 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3108 Background Chemtura Corporation is a corporation organised under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 10 September 2009 | I.A. No. 7441 of 2008 in C.S. (OS) No. 1206 of 2008 Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar Citation: 2009 SCC OnLine Del (C.S.(OS) No. 1206 of 2008) Background Strix Limited is a company incorporated in 1951 under the name Castletown Thermostats
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 7 November 2014 | FAO(OS) No. 16 of 2014 Background Koninklijke Philips Electronics, the Dutch multinational corporation, had filed an application for a patent in India on 13 February 1995 for an invention described as a “method for converting information words to a modulated signal.” The
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics Read More »
A patent, once granted, is not inviolable. The Patents Act, 1970 recognizes that the grant of a patent is an administrative act performed on the basis of an examination that, however thorough, may not always capture every deficiency in an application whether a failure of novelty, an insufficient disclosure, a statutory exclusion that was not
Revocation of Patents under Section 64 – Grounds and Procedure Read More »
Delhi High Court | Decided: 13 April 2012 I.A. No. 18464/2011 in CS (OS) No. 1421/2005 Bench: Justice Manmohan Singh Citation: 2012 PTC DEL 50 380 | 2012 SCC Online Del 2092 | 2012 CTC IP 3 6 Background AstraZeneca UK Ltd. (plaintiff) was the registered proprietor of the trade mark MERONEM, used for pharmaceutical
AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Read More »
Madras High Court | O.S.A. Nos. 132 and 133 of 2010 | Decided on 4 October 2010 Coram: Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice K.K. Sasidharan Background This dispute arose between two of India’s biggest two-wheeler manufacturers and it was not just about who copied whose technology. It was also about who gets to speak
The journey of a patent application in India does not end with filing. In many respects, it begins in earnest only when the Indian Patent Office issues what is formally known as the First Examination Report – the FER. For applicants who are new to the Indian patent system, the FER can appear daunting: a
Understanding the First Examination Report (FER) and How to Respond Read More »
Delhi High Court | Decided: 8 February 2011 W.P. (C) No. 801 of 2011 Bench: Justice S. Muralidhar Background Nippon Steel Corporation, a Japanese corporation with world-class technology in the field of medium-high grade steel, was engaged in intensive research and development in steelmaking and related engineering. On 9 February 2007, Nippon Steel filed an