IP IN INDIA
that seem to favour public interest over those of IP owners, India has done well in providing free and fair mechanisms to protect IP.
Several new laws and amendments have been introduced. T ese include the Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded IP Bill of 2008 and T e Universities for Research and Innovation Bill, 2012. A new law for protecting small and incremental innovations has also been under discussion at various forums. Recently, the Indian commerce and industry minister handed over the Instrument of India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol in Geneva, declaring its implementation from July 8, 2013. T e patent offi ce has started digitising its records and has also brought in more transparency over the years.
Are there particular cases to watch in the next few months, and what depends on their outcome?
Cases include:
• T e compulsory licensing (CL) decision in favour of generic manufacturer Natco (against Bayer) at the IP Appellate Board has important ramifi cations for the development
of CL law in India. T e decision is likely to be appealed and the Supreme Court may provide further clarity.
• T e Novartis case at the Supreme Court was an important one, where the court, while rejecting the application of Novartis on β crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, marketed under the brand name Glivec, acknowledged the importance of patents in fostering research to develop new medicines and noted that Section 3(d) does not bar patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances.
• Internet service provider liability in the context of the My Space decision and similar cases on this issue will provide clarity on the subject.
• Setting royalty payments using standard essential patents in IT and telecom sectors is being debated in Ericsson v Micromax and is another one to watch.
• T e denial of an interim injunction by the Delhi High Court to Merck for the infringement of its patented drugs, Januvia and Janumet by Glenmark, is also a case worth watching. T e generic company
Ranjan Narula founded specialist IP fi rm Ranjan Narula Associates in 2004. With more than 20 years of post-qualifi cation experience, Narula advises IP holders on IP management issues and provides strategic advice on IP clearance, exploitation, acquisition, protection and enforcement.
has submitted that the salt form of the
patented free molecule is ‘diff erent' and non- infringing.
Ranjan Narula is the managing partner of Ranjan Narula Associates. He is based in New Delhi and can be contacted at:
rnarula@indiaiprights.com
The Lawyer European Awards 2012
Noerr is one of the top European law firms with 480 professionals in Germany, Europe and the USA. We deliver real value to our clients by devising and handling the right solutions to complex and sophisticated legal matters. The Noerr difference is our unique combination of legal excellence, creative thinking, international experience and in-depth industry knowledge. Together with our tax advisors, auditors and management consultants, we also develop sustainable solutions for finance and management.
www.noerr.com
ALICANTE BERLIN BRATISLAVA BUCHAREST BUDAPEST DRESDEN DÜSSELDORF FRANKFURT/M. KIEV LONDON MOSCOW MUNICH NEW YORK PRAGUE WARSAW
NOERR.COM
www.worldipreview.com
World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2013
41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168