- 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 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
- 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
Teva held responsible for Induced Infringement of Eli Lilly’s Blockbuster drug ALITMA
In Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.; APP Pharmaceuticals LLC; Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to be as Defendants/Appellants/Teva) Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff/Appelle/Eli Lilly) decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on January 12, 2017, Plaintiff had filed … Continue reading Teva held responsible for Induced Infringement of Eli Lilly’s Blockbuster drug ALITMA
Read more »NEPAL’S IP LAW: AN ENCAPSULATION
Intellectual property law in Nepal is comparatively new and it enjoys the extension provided to the least developed countries to be compliant under the TRIPS agreement. Patents, Designs and Trademarks are protected under one head, and the governing act/ legislation is known as “The Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act, 2022 (1965)” (hereinafter referred to … Continue reading NEPAL’S IP LAW: AN ENCAPSULATION
Read more »REVOCATION OF PATENTS ACCORDING TO INDIAN PATENT ACT, 1970: INSIGHT
This article focuses on the revocation proceedings which is one of the mechanisms available for annulations of Patents in India. What is revocation of a patent? When a patent has been sealed or granted, it is not always the case that the patent shall stay unhindered by any third party till the life of the … Continue reading REVOCATION OF PATENTS ACCORDING TO INDIAN PATENT ACT, 1970: INSIGHT
Read more »Section 3 (K) of Indian Patent Act: Case Study
Ms. Anjana Mohan, intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys attempts to analyze case study related to section 3 (k) of Patent Act, 1970. ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICE GMBH (Appellants) V ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGN AND THE EXAMINER OF PATENTS (Respondents) CITATION- OA/22/2009/PT/DEL and Miscellaneous Petition No. 118/2012 in OA/22/2009/PT/DEL HON’BLE JUDGES/CORAM: … Continue reading Section 3 (K) of Indian Patent Act: Case Study
Read more »India: Do we need Patent Term Extension and Non-Patent Exclusivities for Pharmaceuticals?
India, though in a phase of rapid economic development, still has the bane of poverty. In this country, around 22% of the population is Below the Poverty Line [1], and hence most of the nation’s policies are oriented towards the poor. India’s IP Policy is no different, as the IP legislature in India is mostly … Continue reading India: Do we need Patent Term Extension and Non-Patent Exclusivities for Pharmaceuticals?
Read more »Analysis of the rejection of Lumacaftor (Polymorph) patent application in India
We have been receiving requests from our Pharma clients/readers of the blog for the analysis of the decision/ facts that led to rejection of Lumacaftor (Polymorph) patent application in India since last year. Here is our take: Details of the Patent Application and important dates: Patent application number in India 2056/KOLNP/2010 Title of the invention … Continue reading Analysis of the rejection of Lumacaftor (Polymorph) patent application in India
Read more »A Primer to Patent Application Drafting with special emphasis on standard practise(s) before the Indian Patent Office
An enforceable Patent being the key to effective Commercialization/Out-Licensing of any technology needs to be drafted well. No matter how good a technology is, if the description of the technical subject matter of a Patent is not enabling or fails to disclose all necessary embodiments, and in case the claims are narrowly drafted and do … Continue reading A Primer to Patent Application Drafting with special emphasis on standard practise(s) before the Indian Patent Office
Read more »PATENT INFRINGMENT SUIT BY DOLBY AGAINST OPPO AND VIVO
Anjana Mohan, an intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys deals with the updates in the Patent Litigation between Dolby International and two Smartphone companies Oppo and Vivo over the patented technology by Dolby. Dolby filed suits vide Suit no CS(COMM) 1425/2016 and CS(COMM) 1426/2016 against various parties including the two major Chinese … Continue reading PATENT INFRINGMENT SUIT BY DOLBY AGAINST OPPO AND VIVO
Read more »Merk’s patent valid but Teva’s Nasonex generic non-infringing
In Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (hereinafter referred to be as “Merck”) v. Teva Pharms. United States, Inc. (hereinafter referred to be as “Teva”) decided on November 16, 2016, Teva’s application of Abbreviated New Drug Application (hereinafter referred to as “ANDA”) no. 205149 had triggered Merck to file infringement suit against Teva in respect of … Continue reading Merk’s patent valid but Teva’s Nasonex generic non-infringing
Read more »Foreign Filing Permission: Indian Patent System Perspective
Different countries having regard to National Security Considerations and with the intent of having a check on the defence and atomic energy related inventions, have different restrictions in place. While some countries make it mandatory to file Patent Applications in their country before applying in any other country, some countries require only prior permission before … Continue reading Foreign Filing Permission: Indian Patent System Perspective
Read more »