- 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
- 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 »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 »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 »CIPLA’s plea for revocation of Novartis Patents for Onbrez may face major set back by the Government
As reported in TOI, the Indian Government has found very little merit in Cipla’s plea for waiver and cancellation of Patent rights for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) drug over which Novartis has exclusive rights. We have reported on Cipla’s plea here. Background: Cipla, previously approached the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) to … Continue reading CIPLA’s plea for revocation of Novartis Patents for Onbrez may face major set back by the Government
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 »Tesla Motors Decide to Open Source their Patents
On June 12th 2014, Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Product Architect of electric car company Tesla Motors announced that Tesla Motors will let other companies use its inventions under an open source inspired agenda at the company. This is how Elon Musk put it in his blog post- “Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against … Continue reading Tesla Motors Decide to Open Source their Patents
Read more »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 »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 »