- AI
- 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
- Traditional Knowledge
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
Patent Trolling and Fee-Shifting
Manish Kumar, intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys, looks at ‘fee-shifting’ paradigm in US Patent Act in light of US Supreme Court recent judgments. The US Supreme Court, in its two recent judgments, has re-instituted its pre-2005 stand where the Courts had discretion of awarding reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party … Continue reading Patent Trolling and Fee-Shifting
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 »Relief for Pfizer as IPAB stays Revocation on Drug Tolterodine
In a positive development for US drug giant Pfizer, the country’s Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has issued an interim stay on an order stated by the Indian Patent Office removing a patent of Pfizer, for its extended release drug Tolterodine (Detrol), which is used for treating old age patients who suffer from frequent urination. … Continue reading Relief for Pfizer as IPAB stays Revocation on Drug Tolterodine
Read more »IPAB: Nature of Jurisdiction, Power and Authority
Akash Patel, an intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys, looks at the nature of jurisdiction at the IPAB, its power and authority. In a judgment dated July 08, 2013, a larger bench of Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter read as IPAB) had decided on two important issues, one relating to IPAB’s power … Continue reading IPAB: Nature of Jurisdiction, Power and Authority
Read more »Central Government’s power of Revocation of Patent in Public Interest
Gopikrishnan M and Akash Patel, interns at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys, looks at Central Government’s power of Revocation of Patent in Public Interest. The Indian Patent Act,1970(hereinafter Act) empowers the Central Government to revoke any patent granted by the Indian Patent Office if it feels that the said patent is prejudicial to public … Continue reading Central Government’s power of Revocation of Patent in Public Interest
Read more »Rockstar Consortium US LP et. al.v. Google Inc
Gopikrishnan M, an intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys, looks at Google Inc. been accused of infringing technology related to its searching technology itself. Yet another high-tech and high-profile patent war is on, this one involving a combined attack on the search giant’s core technology. Google is being sued for direct patent infringement … Continue reading Rockstar Consortium US LP et. al.v. Google Inc
Read more »The Billion Dollar Game: Samsung and Apple fight it out
24’th Aug 2012 was another milestone date indicating the value that IP can (of course in geographies which have respect and appreciation for IP!!!) hold and govern for a corporate. More than the award, it’s the injunction and respect for IP that matters and boosts the confidence of Corporates that have innovation as a core … Continue reading The Billion Dollar Game: Samsung and Apple fight it out
Read more »Spice Mobiles Ltd. and M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shri Somasundaram Ramkumar Revocation Proceeding for IN 214388
In a major decision, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) on 1st June 2012 has revoked a patent IN214388 under section 57, 59 and 64(1)(e)(f) of Indian Patent Act, 1970. In this article, we would discuss certain aspects related to outcome of decision and some arguments put forth by the respondent during the trail. The … Continue reading Spice Mobiles Ltd. and M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shri Somasundaram Ramkumar Revocation Proceeding for IN 214388
Read more »Tata Chemicals vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited Revocation Proceeding for IN 195937: Would compliance of Section 8 become a nightmare for Patent Applicants?
This article relates to a recent judgement of IPAB on 12’th July 2012 on revocation of an Indian Patent IN 195937, wherein certain interesting aspects relating to developing standards for revocation under Section 8 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 have been discussed and put forth, quite strongly!! Case Summary: In summary, the case relates … Continue reading Tata Chemicals vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited Revocation Proceeding for IN 195937: Would compliance of Section 8 become a nightmare for Patent Applicants?
Read more »Inherent Anticipation: In re Montgomery
The Federal Circuit in this case addressed the issue of anticipation by inherency in the context of method of treatment claims. The panel affirmed that a claim to ‘a new use for a known compound’ was inherently anticipated by a reference which disclosed a plan for a proposed clinical trial that had not been carried … Continue reading Inherent Anticipation: In re Montgomery
Read more »