Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
November 2015
ABOUT CSIPR
THE e-NEWSLETTER
The Cell for Studies in Intellectual Property Rights presents the
first issue of its e-newsletter in its endeavour to promote the
culture of knowledge creation in India. It aims to create
meaningful debate and discourse to help build a fair and
equitable regime of Intellectual Property Law and to study the
dynamic confluence of the academic and the transactional world
presented by the Intellectual Property Laws.
THE EDITOR
Prof. (Dr.) Ghayur Alam,
Vaishali Vinod 6
EDITORIAL BOARD
Ashima Gulati
Devyani Gupta
Meher Tandon
Udyan Arya Shrivastava
ISSUE 1
NOVEMBER 2015
Interpretation of TRIPS
ISSUE 1
NOVEMBER 2015
1.
4.
2.
Data Exclusivity
3.
Doha Declaration
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/3iqdSmkLJYwwVbmas3hF0K/
After-WTO-India-hardens-stand-in-RCEPnegotiations.html?utm_
source=copy
10
ISSUE 1
NOVEMBER 2015
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-0824/news/65808614_1_rcep-10-asean-members-trade-agreement
12 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/modi-in-japan-shinzo-abe-bullettrains-in-india-tokyo-kyoto/1/380333.html
13 http://www.livemint.com/Politics/vgrNCwTcLpuAyASnEln0LM/
IPR-key-facet-of-IndiaEU-trade-talks-Germany.html
11
ISSUE 1
NOVEMBER 2015
High Court held that Cipla had failed to prove the lack of
innovation and improvement in IN 774 and therefore
Section 3(d) would not be attracted.
12
13
ISSUE 1
NOVEMBER 2015
(2013) 6 SCC 1.
Trying mediation, Sagnik Dutta, Frontline, July 25, 2014.
21 Roche-Cipla mediation row fails. Rupali Mukherjee, Times of India,
October 31, 2014
22 Ibid.
19
20
Indigenization
The new government has initiated the Make in India and
Digital India initiatives that seek to foster innovation and
creativity by generating, protecting and utilizing intellectual
property assets. In retrospect, the country has always adopted a
protectionist approach towards the local market.
An example of this is its take on compulsory licensing, which is
also the most controversial aspect of the Indian IPR regime.
Section 84 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 provides for
compulsory licensing after the expiration of three years from
the date of the grant of a patent on grounds of reasonable
requirements of the public, availability at reasonably affordable
price or that the patented invention is not worked in the
territory of India. In a landmark ruling, the Intellectual Property
Appellate Board upheld the compulsory licence granted to
Natco Pharma Limited, an Indian manufacturer, for the
production of an oncological drug and categorically stated that
the grant is not to favour the licensee, but to make the medicine
reasonably affordable and accessible to the public. 9 This has
been widely criticised and has increased pressure on the Indian
government from the US to water down its stance on
compulsory licensing. The recent initiatives as well as the
proposals in the IPR Policy to encourage domestic innovation
create concerns for foreign investors.
Capital Records Inc. v. Erickson, 2 Cal. App. 3d 526, 82 Cal. Rptr. 798 (1969).
US India Business Council Ernst & Young, The Effects of Counterfeiting and
Piracy on Indias Entertainment Industry (2008).
5 Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, Sections 65A, 65B.
6 Sonia Baldia, Offshoring to India: Are Your Trade Secrets and Confidential
Information Adequately Protected?, MAYER BROWN BUS. & TECH. SOURCING REV.
(Mar. 1, 2008).
Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd., 1948 (65) RPC.
203.
8 Novartis AG v. Union of India & Others, (2013) 6 SCC 1, 103, 104, and 192.
9 Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, The Controller of Patents and Natco Pharma
Limited, MIPR 2013 (2) 97.
3
4