- AI
- Air Pollution
- Arbitration
- Asia
- Automobile
- Bangladesh
- Banking
- Biodiversity
- Biological Inventions
- bLAWgathon
- Brand Valuation
- Business
- Celebrity Rights
- Company Act
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Consumer Protection Authority
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Media
- Digital Right Management
- Dispute
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Environment Law Practice
- ESIC Act
- EX-Parte
- Farmer Right
- Fashion Law
- FDI
- FERs
- Foreign filing license
- Foreign Law
- Gaming Industry
- GDPR
- Geographical Indication (GI)
- GIg Economy
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- IBC
- India
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- IT Act
- IVF technique
- Judiciary
- Khadi Industries
- labour Law
- Legal Case
- Legal Issues
- Lex Causae
- Licensing
- Live-in relationships
- Lok Sabha Bill
- Marriage Act
- Maternity Benefit Act
- Media & Entertainment Law
- Mediation Act
- Member of Parliament
- Mergers & Acquisition
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- News & Updates
- Non-Disclosure Agreement
- Online Gaming
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Fess
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patents
- Personality rights
- pharma
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Pollution
- Posh Act
- Protection of SMEs
- RERA
- Section 3(D)
- Signapore
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Stamp Duty
- Stock Exchange
- Surrogacy in India
- TAX
- Technology
- Telecom Law
- Telecommunications
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Litigation
- Trademark Registration in Foreign
- Traditional Knowledge
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
- Women Empower
Xiaomi Injunction: Yet another injunction given too soon?
In CS(OS) 3775/2014, as we understand from multiple sources, Xiaomi has been injuncted from manufacturing its line of smart phones for it has been prima-facie found to be infringing on certain standard essential patents of Ericsson. Although the order is not uploaded as yet, we understand that the patents used against Xiaomi, by Ericsson, are the same … Continue reading Xiaomi Injunction: Yet another injunction given too soon?
Read more »Cipla Files Representation with Govt. Seeking Revocation of Novartis’ Patents
It has been recently reported in Economic times that Cipla has filed representation with the government (Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion) seeking revocation of five patents of Novartis on indacaterol, a respiratory drug for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and marketed as Onbrez by Novartis. The central government, under section 66 … Continue reading Cipla Files Representation with Govt. Seeking Revocation of Novartis’ Patents
Read more »Revised Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharma Patent Applications
We have earlier reported the release of Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharma Patent Applications. The Patent office has now released revised draft guidelines and in continuation of our earlier article here, we explain herein what those revisions are and impact of the guidelines in general. The revised guidelines are available here. The revised guidelines … Continue reading Revised Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharma Patent Applications
Read more »Patent Registration Process in India
With a significantly increasing number of Individual Inventors and Small/Medium Sized Clients regularly asking on Patent Registration Process in India, this article is an effort by our Intern, Ananya Singh, to come up with a quick article on Patent Registration Process in India. We hope that a link to the article can give desired clarity … Continue reading Patent Registration Process in India
Read more »Amendment in Trade Mark Fees
Recently, Controller General of Patents Design and Trade Marks, Mr. Chaitanya Prasad,has issued a Public Notice on August 7, 2014, wherein it has been put forth that, from August 1, 2014,Official Fees for filing a new Trade Mark application in one class has been increased from Rs. 3500/- to Rs. 4000/-. It was also mentioned … Continue reading Amendment in Trade Mark Fees
Read more »Indian Patent office rejects Patent claim over Abraxane
In a major setback, the Indian Patent Office denied a patent to an anti cancer drug Abraxane manufactured by US-Based Abraxis BioSciences. Here we will discuss the decision given by IPO at the back drop of the arguments advanced by the respective parties. Background In a brief, Patent application no. 2899/DELNP/2005 filed by Abraxis Biosciences … Continue reading Indian Patent office rejects Patent claim over Abraxane
Read more »ODISHA COURT ADMITTED CASE AGAINST AAMIR KHAN PRODUCTION’S PROPOSED ‘SATYAMEV JAYATE’ USE AS TRADE MARK
As per the sources, the court in the Odisha capital, Bhuvaneshwar has admitted a petition challenging Aamir Khan Production’s plans to use ‘Satyamev Jayate’, the national motto of India, as a business brand under which it is proposed to sell everything from kitchen utensils to footwear. A city based journalist and social activist, Dr. Subash … Continue reading ODISHA COURT ADMITTED CASE AGAINST AAMIR KHAN PRODUCTION’S PROPOSED ‘SATYAMEV JAYATE’ USE AS TRADE MARK
Read more »Why Protecting Patents in India is Giving Hard Time to Drug Patent Holders
Introduction A lot has been discussed on the Novartis ruling indicating much higher standards of patentability under Indian law under section 3d. The ruling decided that any new form of known compound (in medicine) would be patentable only if there is enhanced ‘therapeutic efficacy’ over the known compound. Post Novartis ruling, a couple of patent … Continue reading Why Protecting Patents in India is Giving Hard Time to Drug Patent Holders
Read more »M/s Aditi Manufacturing Company v/s Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel , Section(64) patent act, 1970
Takshasheel Bouddha, an intern at Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys, analyses the case, M/s Aditi Manufacturing Company v/s Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel &The Controllers of Patents & Designs. This judgment is with respect to Section 64 of Patent Act, 1970. Introduction: The dispute was regarding of two patents i.e. Patent No.189027 and Patent … Continue reading M/s Aditi Manufacturing Company v/s Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel , Section(64) patent act, 1970
Read more »INDIA SIGNS MARRAKESH TREATY FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED
India has signed ‘Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled’ at a ceremony organised by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) at Geneva during 28th April to 2nd May 2014 through Smt. Veena Ish, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Human Resource Development. … Continue reading INDIA SIGNS MARRAKESH TREATY FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED
Read more »