Gene Patents - Evil, Inefficient or USEFUL

Here is the discussion on Gene Patents 

Gene Patents - Evil, Inefficient or USEFUL

Diptarka Ray SHould be for not more than 5 years, even if granted
August 8 at 12:41pm · Like

Poongothai Ramaswamy Gene patents should not be at least granted to the ones which are of health concerns to humans...
Yesterday at 11:55am · Like

Vijay Kumar Makyam But...what about research in this area..where great solutions are provided? Shouldn't we encourage the research by rewarding them by grant of patent.
17 hrs · Like

Vijay Kumar Makyam Just like life saving pharmaceutical drugs there should be controlled and not completely eliminated from patenting.
17 hrs · Like

Vijay Kumar Makyam Incases of misuse...revoke them or grant compulsory license.
17 hrs · Like

Vijay Kumar Makyam Not granting patents would go against Article 27 of Trips.
17 hrs · Like

Vijay Kumar Makyam Though governments are given liberty to take a call on patents related to plant and animals.
17 hrs · Like · 1

Poongothai Ramaswamy Vijay sir ....i was keeping in mind... Myriad genetics case while commenting on this post... http://www.genomicslawreport.com/.../myriad-gene-patent.../

Myriad Gene Patent Litigation - Genomics Law Report
www.genomicslawreport.com
As we previously reported , after the Supreme Court decided AMP v. Myriad Geneti...See More
1 hr · Like

Vijay Kumar Makyam I am not sure about the details of this case; however seems this case on the point that DNA that had merely been isolated from the body was not patentable subject matter. I am not going into technicalities here but as Indian Patent Act has Section 3(d) for stopping ever greening of pharmaceutical patents; there should be some provision of law for controlling the gene patents and should not be completely eliminated.
27 mins · Like

Vijay Kumar Makyam The Research in Gene Patents would be quite useful to solve genetically disorders and several such issues.

Oracle wins copyright ruling against Google over Android

Oracle Corp won a legal victory against Google Inc on Friday as a U.S. appeals court decided Oracle could copyright parts of the Java programming language, which Google used to design its Android smartphone operating system.

The case, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, is being closely watched in Silicon Valley. A high-profile 2012 trial featured testimony from Oracle's chief executive, Larry Ellison, and Google CEO Larry Page, and the legal issues go to the heart of how tech companies protect their most valuable intellectual property.

Google's Android operating system is the world's best-selling smartphone platform. Oracle sued Google in 2010, claiming that Google had improperly incorporated parts of Java into Android. Oracle is seeking roughly $1 billion on its copyright claims.

 

A San Francisco federal judge had decided that Oracle could not claim copyright protection on parts of Java, but on Friday the three-judge Federal Circuit panel reversed that ruling.

"We conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection," Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley wrote.

Pamela Samuelson, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, School of Law who wrote a brief supporting Google in the case, said the Federal Circuit's decision meanssoftware companies now face uncertainty in determining how to write interoperable computer programs that do not violate copyright.

"What we have is a decision that will definitely shake up the software industry," said Samuelson.

But Oracle attorney E. Joshua Rosenkranz said the law has always been clear on these issues. "There's nothing at all astounding in what the Federal Circuit did," he said.

NOT THE END OF LEGAL DISPUTE

The case examined whether computer language that connects programs - known as application programming interfaces, or APIs - can be copyrighted. At trial in San Francisco, Oracle said Google's Android trampled on its rights to the structure of 37 Java APIs.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Java APIs replicated by Google were not subject to copyright protection and were free for all to use. The Federal Circuit disagreed on Friday, ruled for Oracle and instructed the lower court to reinstate a jury's finding of infringement as to 37 Java API packages.

"We find that the district court failed to distinguish between the threshold question of what is copyrightable — which presents a low bar — and the scope of conduct that constitutes infringing activity," O'Malley wrote.

The unanimous Federal Circuit panel ordered further proceedings before Alsup to decide whether Google's actions were protected under fair use.

Programmers could still craft interoperable programs if the opinion stands, but lawyers will have to be more involved in signing off on what is permissible, said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.

"That's really expensive and lawyers are not going to give yes or no answers, and that's going to be stressful for everybody," Goldman said.

Google had argued that software should only be allowed to be patented, not copyrighted. However, O'Malley wrote that the Federal Circuit is bound to respect copyright protection for software, "until either the Supreme Court or Congress tells us otherwise."

Oracle General Counsel Dorian Daley called the decision a "win" for an industry "that relies on copyright protection to fuel innovation." Google said it set a "damaging precedent for computer science and software development" and was considering its options.

The case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is Oracle America Inc vs. Google Inc, 13-1021.

As seen in 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/09/us-oracle-google-ruling-idUSBREA480KQ20140509

India’s Defence against IP Disrespect Claim

This article is published in Asia IP ,March EDITION.

After losing its patent grant,  multinational pharmaceutical company  Novartis has asked the United States 

and European governments to urge the  Indian government to do a better job of  respecting IP. But Vijay Kumar Makyam,  head of patents and trademarks at IP  Markets, a techno-legal consultant  in Hyderabad, defends his country’s government against the allegation. Saying that the Indian government  does not respect IP is completely  groundless, Makyam says, noting  that India has endorsed the TRIPS  Agreement and has vowed to abide by  the global IP standards “What the court looked into [in the Novartis case] was the issue of evergreening of patents,” he says. “There have been many reported cases from the west where evergreening has prolonged the duration of patent beyond the legal period. India’s Supreme Court did not find anything innovative in the patent claimed by Novartis.”In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court ruled against Novartis in rejecting the Guidance on the DIFC Data Protection Laws The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) has published a guide to its Data Protection Law and Regulations. The guide sets out the DIFC Commissioner of Data Protection’s views on how he interprets some of the provisions and how DIFC companies can comply with the law in practice, says Dino Wilkinson, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright (Middle East), in Abu Dhabi. 

 There is no specific data protection legislation in the UAE, but other laws on the use of private information have some relevant provisions, such as the Penal Code or the Cyber Crimes Law. He tells Asia IP that there is 

limited guidance from the Central Bank regarding data processing in the area. Some institutions adopt DIFC standards as best practice, particularly if they also have a DIFC branch or subsidiary. “The guidance will help those dealing with DIFC entities to better understand the obligations on their business  partners,” Wilkinson says. “It could also pharmaceutical group’s application for a patent for an updated version of its cancer drug Glivec, which is marketed in some parts of the world under the Gleevec name. The verdict was one of 

several Indian court rulings that have overturned or rejected patents from western drug companies, including 

Bayer and Pfizer. India has, in turn, accused the west of conducting inappropriate actions, including unauthorized and illegal seizure of Indian pharmaceutical exports, Makyam says. “Such has been a huge issue in bilateral talks.”Some groups in the pharmaceutical industry have asked the US Trade Representative to designate India a Priority Foreign Country, which is seen a step closer towards possible trade sanctions.

 “It is unfortunate that these groups have not been able to appreciate the justifiable stands taken by the Indian courts in the pharmaceutical matters,” Makyam says. “India has one of the most technically-qualified populations in the drug industry, so the request of the industry groups is completely unfair.”The industry groups also claim that “What the court looked into [in the Novartis case] was the issue of evergreening of patents,” he says. “There have been many reported cases from the west where evergreening has prolonged the duration of patent beyond the legal period. India’s Supreme Court did not find anything innovative in the 

patent claimed by Novartis.” In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court ruled against Novartis in rejecting the 

Guidance on the DIFC Data Protection LawsThe Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) has published a 

guide to its Data Protection Law and Regulations. The guide sets out the DIFC Commissioner of Data 

Protection’s views on how he interprets some of the provisions and how DIFC companies can comply with the law in practice, says Dino Wilkinson, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright (Middle East), in Abu Dhabi. 

 There is no specific data protection legislation in the UAE, but other laws on the use of private information have some relevant provisions, such as the Penal Code or the Cyber Crimes Law. He tells Asia IP that there is 

limited guidance from the Central Bank regarding data processing in the area. Some institutions adopt DIFC standards as best practice, particularly if they also have a DIFC branch or subsidiary.  “The guidance will help those dealing with DIFC entities to better understand the obligations on their business partners,” Wilkinson says. “It could also pharmaceutical group’s application for a patent for an updated version of its cancer drug Glivec, which is marketed in some parts of the world under the Gleevec name. The verdict was one of 

several Indian court rulings that have overturned or rejected patents from western drug companies, including 

Bayer and Pfizer.India has, in turn, accused the west of conducting inappropriate actions, including unauthorized and illegal seizure of Indian pharmaceutical exports, Makyam says. “Such has been a huge issue in bilateral talks.”Some groups in the pharmaceutical industry have asked the US Trade Representative to designate India a Priority Foreign Country, which is seen a step closer towards possible trade sanctions.

 “It is unfortunate that these groups have not been able to appreciate the justifiable stands taken by the Indian courts in the pharmaceutical matters,” Makyam says. “India has one of the most technically-qualified populations in the drug industry, so the request of the industry groups is completely unfair.” The industry groups also claim that “What the court looked into [in the Novartis case] was the issue of evergreening of patents,” he says. “There have been many reported cases from the west where evergreening has prolonged the duration of patent beyond the legal period. India’s Supreme Court did not find anything innovative in the 

patent claimed by Novartis.” In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court ruled against Novartis in rejecting the 

Guidance on the DIFC Data Protection Laws

 The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) has published a guide to its Data Protection Law and Regulations. The guide sets out the DIFC Commissioner of Data Protection’s views on how he interprets 

some of the provisions and how DIFC companies can comply with the law in practice, says Dino Wilkinson, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright (Middle East), in Abu Dhabi.  There is no specific data protection legislation 

in the UAE, but other laws on the use of private information have some relevant provisions, such as the Penal Code or the Cyber Crimes Law. He tells Asia IP that there is limited guidance from the Central Bank 

regarding data processing in the area. Some institutions adopt DIFC standards as best practice, particularly if they also have a DIFC branch or subsidiary.  “The guidance will help those dealing with DIFC entities to better understand the obligations on their business partners,” Wilkinson says. “It could also pharmaceutical group’s application for a patent for an updated version of its cancer drug Glivec, which is marketed in some parts of the world under the Gleevec name. The verdict was one of several Indian court rulings that have overturned or rejected patents from western drug companies, including Bayer and Pfizer.India has, in turn, accused the west 

of conducting inappropriate actions,including unauthorized and illegal seizure of Indian pharmaceutical 

exports, Makyam says. “Such has been a huge issue in bilateral talks.” Some groups in the pharmaceutical 

industry have asked the US Trade Representative to designate India a Priority Foreign Country, which is seen 

a step closer towards possible trade sanctions. “It is unfortunate that these groups have not been able to appreciate the justifiable stands taken by the Indian courts in the pharmaceutical matters,” 

Makyam says. “India has one of the most technically-qualified populations in the drug industry, so the request of the industry groups is completely unfair.”The industry groups also claim that “What the court looked into [in the Novartis case] was the issue of evergreening of patents,” he says. “There have been many reported cases 

from the west where evergreening has prolonged the duration of patent beyond the legal period. India’s Supreme Court did not find anything innovative in the patent claimed by Novartis.”

In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court ruled against Novartis in rejecting the Guidance on the DIFC Data 

Protection Laws . The Dubai International Financial  Centre (DIFC) has published a  guide to its Data Protection Law  and Regulations. The guide sets  out the DIFC Commissioner of Data  Protection’s views on how he interprets some of the provisions and how DIFC  companies can comply with the law in practice, says Dino Wilkinson, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright (Middle East), in Abu Dhabi.   There is no specific data protection legislation in the UAE, but other laws on the use of private information have some relevant provisions, such as the Penal Code or the Cyber Crimes Law. He tells Asia IP that there is limited guidance from the Central Bank regarding data processing in the area. Some institutions adopt DIFC standards 

as best practice, particularly if they also have a DIFC branch or subsidiary. “The guidance will help those dealing with DIFC entities to better understand the obligations on their business partners,” Wilkinson says. “It could also pharmaceutical group’s application for a patent for an updated version of its 

cancer drug Glivec, which is marketed in some parts of the world under the Gleevec name. The verdict was one of several Indian court rulings that have overturned or rejected patents from western drug companies, including Bayer and Pfizer. India has, in turn, accused the west of conducting inappropriate actions, 

including unauthorized and illegal seizure of Indian pharmaceutical exports, Makyam says. “Such has been a huge issue in bilateral talks.”Some groups in the pharmaceutical industry have asked the US Trade 

Representative to designate India a Priority Foreign Country, which is seen a step closer towards possible trade sanctions.“It is unfortunate that these groups have not been able to appreciate the justifiable stands taken by the Indian courts in the pharmaceutical matters,” Makyam says. “India has one of the 

most technically-qualified populations in the drug industry, so the request of the industry groups is completely unfair.”

The industry groups also claim that “What the court looked into [in the Novartis case] was the issue of 

evergreening of patents,” he says. “There have been many reported cases from the west where evergreening has prolonged the duration of patent beyond the legal period. India’s Supreme Court did not find anything innovative in the patent claimed by Novartis.”

 In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court ruled against Novartis in rejecting the Guidance on the DIFC Data Protection Laws. The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) has published a  guide to its Data Protection Law and Regulations. The guide sets out the DIFC Commissioner of Data Protection’s views on how he interprets some of the provisions and how DIFC companies can comply with the law in practice, says Dino Wilkinson, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright (Middle East),  in Abu Dhabi. 

There is no specific data protection  legislation in the UAE, but other laws on the use of private information have some relevant provisions, such as the Penal Code or the Cyber Crimes Law. He tells Asia IP that there is 

limited guidance from the Central Bank regarding data processing in the area. Some institutions adopt DIFC standards as best practice, particularly if they also have a DIFC branch or subsidiary.  “The guidance will help those dealing with DIFC entities to better understand the obligations on their business partners,” Wilkinson says. “It could also pharmaceutical group’s application for a patent for an updated version of its cancer drug Glivec, which is marketed in some parts of the world under the Gleevec name. The verdict was one of 

several Indian court rulings that have overturned or rejected patents from western drug companies, including 

Bayer and Pfizer. India has, in turn, accused the west of conducting inappropriate actions, including unauthorized and illegal seizure of Indian pharmaceutical exports, Makyam says. “Such has been a huge issue in bilateral talks.” Some groups in the pharmaceutical industry have asked the US Trade Representative to designate India a Priority Foreign Country, which is seen a step closer towards possible trade sanctions.

 “It is unfortunate that these groups have not been able to appreciate the justifiable stands taken by the Indian  courts in the pharmaceutical matters,” 

Makyam says. “India has one of the 

most technically-qualified populations 

in the drug industry, so the request 

of the industry groups is completely 

unfair.”

 The industry groups also claim that 

“What the court looked into [in 

the Novartis case] was the issue of 

evergreening of patents,” he says. 

“There have been many reported cases 

from the west where evergreening has 

prolonged the duration of patent beyond 

the legal period. India’s Supreme Court 

did not find anything innovative in the 

patent claimed by Novartis.”

 In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court 

ruled against Novartis in rejecting the 

Guidance on the DIFC Data 

Protection Laws

 The Dubai International Financial 

Centre (DIFC) has published a 

guide to its Data Protection Law 

and Regulations. The guide sets 

out the DIFC Commissioner of Data 

Protection’s views on how he interprets 

some of the provisions and how DIFC 

companies can comply with the law in 

practice, says Dino Wilkinson, a partner 

at Norton Rose Fulbright (Middle East), 

in Abu Dhabi. 

 There is no specific data protection 

legislation in the UAE, but other laws 

on the use of private information have 

some relevant provisions, such as 

the Penal Code or the Cyber Crimes 

Law. He tells Asia IP that there is 

limited guidance from the Central Bank 

regarding data processing in the area. 

Some institutions adopt DIFC standards 

as best practice, particularly if they also 

have a DIFC branch or subsidiary. 

 “The guidance will help those dealing 

with DIFC entities to better understand 

the obligations on their business 

partners,” Wilkinson says. “It could also 

pharmaceutical group’s application for 

a patent for an updated version of its 

cancer drug Glivec, which is marketed 

in some parts of the world under the 

Gleevec name. The verdict was one of 

several Indian court rulings that have 

overturned or rejected patents from 

western drug companies, including 

Bayer and Pfizer.

 India has, in turn, accused the west 

of conducting inappropriate actions, 

including unauthorized and illegal 

seizure of Indian pharmaceutical 

exports, Makyam says. “Such has been 

a huge issue in bilateral talks.”

 Some groups in the pharmaceutical 

industry have asked the US Trade 

Representative to designate India a 

Priority Foreign Country, which is seen 

a step closer towards possible trade 

sanctions.

 “It is unfortunate that these groups 

have not been able to appreciate the 

justifiable stands taken by the Indian 

courts in the pharmaceutical matters,” 

Makyam says. “India has one of the 

most technically-qualified populations 

in the drug industry, so the request 

of the industry groups is completely 

unfair.”

 The industry groups also claim that 

“What the court looked into [in 

the Novartis case] was the issue of 

evergreening of patents,” he says. 

“There have been many reported cases 

from the west where evergreening has 

prolonged the duration of patent beyond 

the legal period. India’s Supreme Court 

did not find anything innovative in the 

patent claimed by Novartis.”

 In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court 

ruled against Novartis in rejecting the 

Guidance on the DIFC Data 

Protection Laws

 The Dubai International Financial 

Centre (DIFC) has published a 

guide to its Data Protection Law 

and Regulations. The guide sets 

out the DIFC Commissioner of Data 

Protection’s views on how he interprets 

some of the provisions and how DIFC 

companies can comply with the law in 

practice, says Dino Wilkinson, a partner 

at Norton Rose Fulbright (Middle East), 

in Abu Dhabi. 

 There is no specific data protection 

legislation in the UAE, but other laws 

on the use of private information have 

some relevant provisions, such as 

the Penal Code or the Cyber Crimes 

Law. He tells Asia IP that there is 

limited guidance from the Central Bank 

regarding data processing in the area. 

Some institutions adopt DIFC standards 

as best practice, particularly if they also 

have a DIFC branch or subsidiary. 

 “The guidance will help those dealing 

with DIFC entities to better understand 

the obligations on their business 

partners,” Wilkinson says. “It could also 

pharmaceutical group’s application for 

a patent for an updated version of its 

cancer drug Glivec, which is marketed 

in some parts of the world under the 

Gleevec name. The verdict was one of 

several Indian court rulings that have 

overturned or rejected patents from 

western drug companies, including 

Bayer and Pfizer.

 India has, in turn, accused the west 

of conducting inappropriate actions, 

including unauthorized and illegal 

seizure of Indian pharmaceutical 

exports, Makyam says. “Such has been 

a huge issue in bilateral talks.”

 Some groups in the pharmaceutical 

industry have asked the US Trade 

Representative to designate India a 

Priority Foreign Country, which is seen 

a step closer towards possible trade 

sanctions.

 “It is unfortunate that these groups 

have not been able to appreciate the 

justifiable stands taken by the Indian 

courts in the pharmaceutical matters,” 

Makyam says. “India has one of the 

most technically-qualified populations 

in the drug industry, so the request 

of the industry groups is completely 

unfair.”

 The industry groups also claim that  the Indian government and courts have 

tended towards narrow interpretations 

of patent protection for costly LIFE SAVING medicines in a bid to allow wider access to cheaper generics 

Indeed, India cannot be a bystander

when IPs are used as tools for monopoly,

Makyam says. “The Novartis and

Bayer judgments have enlightened the

local medical and patient community,

and today patients [who need] very

costly drugs are looking out for similar

judgements.”

Drug makers worry that India’s 

strict approach to granting patents will 

become a model for other developing 

countries, affecting their bottom lines. 

 Despite the tension, Novartis will be 

relocating some 4,000 jobs from Europe 

to India’s southern city of Hyderabad, 

where it expects to move into a new 

campus in late 2015.

 In fact, Makyam expects to see an 

increase of jobs in the industry. India is 

a growing market, he says. “This really 

can be illustrated by the number of 

patent grants in the pharmacy sector.”

- Johnny Chan

US defers decision on downgrading of India's intellectual property regime

NEW DELHI: The United States on Wednesday deferred decision on India's intellectual property regime, providing partial relief from the much anticipated downgrade that could have led to trade sanctions against the country.

The US Trade Representative (USTR) would now conduct an 'out of cycle' review for India's case later this year.

ET had on Wednesday cited this as the first and the most likely possibility for the US to adopt, in the backdrop of ongoing elections in India.


The USTR reviewing whether India's intellectual property environment has deteriorated enough to warrant a label of 'priority foreign country', a label which could trigger American trade sanctions against India.

The prospect of engaging with a new political establishment, which may have fresh takes on many contentious issues raised by the US government may have prompted it to adopt a 'wait and watch' approach. However the US TR has not minced words in harshly attacking a series of recent  patent related policy moves and legal pronouncements here.

The US trade government agency held that 'IP protection and enforcement challenges are growing, and there are serious questions regarding the future of the innovation climate in India across multiple sectors and disciplines'.

In the pharmaceutical sector and increasingly in other sectors, such as the agro-chemicals and green technology sectors, some innovators face serious challenges in securing and enforcing patents in India, said US' special 301 report which grades select countries on what it thinks have defaulted in providing IP protection. 

On the expected lines, the US TR is sharply critical of India's judicial and subsequent policy interpretation of section 3(d), which aims to sieve out frivolous patents and thwart attempts of 'evergreening' of patents and compulsory licensing .

The report says that section 3(d) may be setting different standards for patenting different 'inventions', by setting a higher threshold for drugs. India's interpretation could limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations such as .. as drugs with fewer side effects, decreased toxicity, improved delivery systems, or temperature or storage stability and those innovations which enjoy patent protection in other countries, the report said.

The US would monitor developments around compulsory licensing of patents in India. Seeking greater transparency on current 'inter-ministerial process that is considering over a dozen patented medicines as candidates for government- initiated compulsory licenses', US has urged India to o take inputs from innovators in such matter.

It has also expressed concern over India promoting compulsory licensing in its National Manufacturing Policy as a tool for government entities to implement technology transfer in the clean energy sector.

By allowing opposition of patent before and after the grant, India allows applications to be tied up in costly challenge proceedings for years. The patent term for innovator begins from the application filing date, thus impeding an  .applicant's ability to make investments and conduct business, US feels.

It has also demanded data protection for pharma innovator firms without which it cribs 'companies in India reportedly are able to copy certain pharmaceutical products and seek immediate government approval for marketing based on the original developer's data'.

Online piracy in India, which has the third largest userbase worldwide at 120 million users and the rampant practice of video piracy through camcording disturbs US.

US Chamber of commerce, which has been lobbying for pressure on India, welcomed the decision.

"We are encouraged that USTR recognizes the growing concerns with India's deteriorating IP environment, and support the decision to initiate an 'out-of-cycle' review of India. We hope that this step will generate much needed dialogue for the US and Indian governments to address the concerns identified in the Report. We look forward to working with the next Government of India to promote a robust IP climate" said US Chamber of Commerce's Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC) Executive Vice President Mark Elliot. 

Read more at:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/34438742.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Crucial meet on Monday to discuss IPR issue

Cabinet Secretary Ajit Seth has called a meeting of top bureaucrats on Monday to chalk out a strategy to deal with the IPR (intellectual property rights) issues being raised by the U.S.

The meeting comes in the backdrop of U.S. industry, particularly, from the pharmaceuticals sector, and trade lobbies putting pressure on their government to put India under the ‘Priority Foreign Country’ list for IPR, which may lead to trade sanctions on Indian firms by America.

Indian Ambassador to U.S. S. Jaishankar has suggested that the Indian government should engage with U.S. pharma companies to deliberate on the matter. American companies are alleging that the Indian IPR regime is not compliant with international norms, and discriminates U.S. firms.

“Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh has requested the Cabinet Secretary to convene a meeting on the issue, and the meeting is scheduled for Monday,” sources told PTI.

Besides Mr. Seth and Ms. Singh, other officials who would attend the meeting include Commerce Secretary Rajeev Kher, DIPP Secretary Amitabh Kant and Health Secretary Lov Kumar Verma.

According to sources, as part of trade sanctions, the U.S. may consider withdrawing the benefits under the scheme of Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), which provides reduced tariffs for Indian goods entering the U.S. markets.

“The withdrawal of GSP benefits may impact exports of the MSME sector to the U.S. However, the move would not impact Indian exporters much,” they said.

Earlier, India has made it clear that it would drag the U.S. to WTO if America includes it in that list.

Officials have said the demand is completely unfair as India’s IPR regime is compliant with global laws, including the World Trade Organization.

Under the U.S. Trade Act, a Priority Foreign Country is the worst classification given to those which deny adequate and effective protection of IPR or fair and equitable market access to the US persons relying on IPR protection.

The Obama administration had been strongly criticising India’s investment climate and IPR laws, especially in the pharmaceuticals and solar sectors.

American pharma companies had objected to India’s move to issue a compulsory licence in March, 2012 to Hyderabad-based Natco Pharma to manufacture and sell cancer-treatment drug ‘’Nexavar’ at a price over 30 times lower than that charged by patent-holder Bayer Corporation. Pharma exports increased by 10 per cent to $14.6 billion in 2012-13, with shipments to the U.S. accounting for about 26 per cent of these exports.

Intermediary, It laws,Trademarks and copyrights

NSE alleges software trademark violation; sues domain registrar

The NSE has alleged that Hyderabad-based Manshi Systems had been allowing customers to access the NSE Now platform and data available on it via its own software at prices far lower than those charged by NSE. Photo: Mint

Mumbai: The National Stock Exchange (NSE) has dragged global domain name registrar GoDaddy and a Hyderabad-based technology firm to the Bombay high court over alleged copyright and trademark infringement of its software.

The case relates to NSE’s online trading platform NOW, which allows its subscribers to view and use its database and analysis based on primary data, to execute trades in real time, for a fee. The platform has over 500,000 subscribers.

In its plea, NSE, along with its group firm DotEx International Ltd, has alleged that Hyderabad-based Manshi Systems had been allowing customers to access the NSE Now platform and data available on it via its own software at prices far lower than those charged by NSE.

This is being done without authorization from the stock exchange, it said.

The website of Manshi Systems is hosted by the Indian arm of GoDaddy Operating Co. Llc, making both parties to the case.

“The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the wrongful acts of infringement of copyright in computer database, wrongful use of primary data, and compilation of database and trademark infringement...,” stated the petition, a copy of which has been reviewed by Mint.

Hearing on the petition, which was due to take place on Tuesday, was adjourned until 28 April.

DotEx International converts raw market data into various statistical formats for trade analysis and execution of trades on NOW. It is also the owner of the compiled data or computer data base. Apart from providing real time data feed, the NOW terminal offers its subscribers services like calculation tools, customizable alerts, hourly statistics, security information and trade analysis derived from transactions on NSE.

According to the petition filed by NSE, computer database is an “original literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act 1957” and any unauthorized use of such work is illegal.

While the website has been pulled down temporarily, GoDaddy still remains the registrar. GoDaddy is the world’s largest domain registrar with 57 million domain names under its management, according to the firm’s website. The registrar hosts most of the leading e-commerce websites in India such asFlipkart, Myntra, Jabong and Snapdeal.

Rajiv Sodhi, vice-president and managing director of GoDaddy India Domains and Hosting Services Pvt. Ltd, declined to comment on the case, saying the company does not speak on litigations.

An email sent to Manshi Systems did not elicit a response. Phone calls to the company were not answered.

Launched in 2008, NOW subscription was offered for free till November 2012. Since then NSE has been charging a subscription fee from its customers. It also has eight trademarks containing the expression NOW.

According to Manish Saurastri, a partner at Krishna and Saurastri Associates and a lawyer representing NSE in the case, Manshi was selling its software ManshiRT to its clients for downloading NSE’s NOW. NSE’s spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

Saurastri said, “This is probably the first case in the high court that deals with copyright, trademark infringement of a real time database. The outcome will set a precedent for all such cases.”

Experts said GoDaddy could be liable under the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2008.

Pavan Duggal, a cyber law expert, said, “Both the companies (GoDaddy Llc and GoDaddy India) are covered under the IT law as intermediaries. All intermediaries are mandated to exercise due diligence while discharging their obligation under the law. Here the onus will be upon the intermediaries to prove in the court that they had exercised due diligence to safeguard against copyright infringement.”

Duggal said had the due diligence been done, the activity (hosting Manshi Systems) would not have taken place. “Both the companies could be liable under the Copyright Act and IT Act,” he added.

From

livemint 

GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS IN THE FIELD OF PHARMACEUTICALS

Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks publishes "GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS IN THE FIELD OF PHARMACEUTICALS ". The present guidelines are prepared with the objective that  the Guidelines will help the Examiners and the Controllers of the Patent Office in  achieving consistently uniform standards of patent examination and grant. In case of  any conflict between these Guidelines and the Patents Act, 1970 and the Rules made  there under, the provisions of the Act and Rules will prevail.

The following sections of the Patents Act, 1970 are emphasized in the context of  examination of applications in pharmaceuticals and allied fields: 

a. Section 2 (1) (j): Novelty, inventive step & industrial applicability of products or 

processes, 

b. Section 3 specifies that the following are not patentable inventions within the  meaning of the Act: 

        (i) Section 3 (b): Inventions contrary to morality or which cause serious  prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or environment,  

         (ii) Section 3  (c): Discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring  in nature, 

        (iii) Section 3 (d): Mere discovery of new form of known substance which does  not result in enhancement of known efficacy or mere discovery of any new  property or new use for a known substance, 

         (iv) Section 3 (e): Mere admixture resulting only in aggregation of the properties 

of the components thereof or a process for producing such admixture, 

          (v) Section 3 (i): Method of treatment and diagnosis, 

      (vi) Section 3 (p): An invention which in effect is traditional knowledge or which is  an aggregation or duplication of known properties of traditionally known  component or components, 

c. Section 10 (4): Sufficiency of disclosure, the best method of performing the 

invention and claims defining the scope of invention, and 

d. Section 10 (5): Unity of invention and clarity, succinctness and support of the claims.
Apart from this the guidelines cover Claims of Pharmaceutical Inventions and prior art search .

Find the guidelines here:-

http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/Guidelines_Pharma_PatentApplication_28February2014.pdf

PATENT AMENDMENT RULES 2014

Government of India notifies Patents (Amendment) Rules 2014, which came into force w.e.f. 28 February 2014.The new amendment has provided specific provisions for small entity enterprises . This  special category for small entity includes  a fee structure different from natural person and other person , a specific form 28  for small entity .The amendment in a way is recognizing the  inventions happening in small sectors 

Find more in
http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/patent_Amendment_Rules_2014.pdf

From Wipo : Expansion of Domain Name Space May Shift Trademark Protection Strategies

The unprecedented expansion of the Internet domain name space, until now dominated by .com and a handful of other generic top-level domains (gTLDs), is likely to disrupt existing strategies for trademark protection on the web.

“Trademark owners have been facing significant uncertainty in the expansion of the Domain Name System (DNS) while at the same time working with reduced protection budgets,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. “The proliferation of potential web addresses, with the expected roll-out of 1,400 new gTLDs, will force trademark owners to adjust their priorities in terms of registration and protection choices,” he added.

In 2013, 2,585 cybersquatting cases based on the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) were filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center). Reflecting a trend across the UDRP, this number represented a 10.4% decrease from the 2012 record level. At the same time, the number of domain names in WIPO cases rose by 22% from the 2012 level to 6,191, the most domain names included in WIPO cases in a single year. (Annex 1) Certain trademark owners made savings by grouping larger numbers of domain names in single cases. The total number of domain names in over 28,000 UDRP-based WIPO cases received since 1999 rose to 51,500.

2013 also saw the WIPO Center active in administering cases under the Legal Rights Objection (LRO) procedure. With substantive input by WIPO, this new mechanism aimed to safeguard third-party trademark rights corresponding to an applied-for new gTLD. In September 2013, the WIPO Center posted the expert panel decision in the last of 69 cases that it administered. All expert panel decisions and a December 2013 WIPO report on the LRO process are available online.

With the first new gTLDs having become operational, attention is now focusing on registrations in these domains. On February 11, 2014 the WIPO Center received the first UDRP case in relation to a new domain. This and other new gTLD cases now being filed with the WIPO Center will provide insight into how brand owners spend legal budgets in the new domains.

Updated WIPO Rules

In the area of IP and technology dispute resolution, the WIPO Center in 2013 undertook a review of the WIPO Mediation and (Expedited) Arbitration Rules (WIPO Rules). Informed by WIPO case experience and by the global evolution of ADR practices, the updated WIPO Rules will enter into effect on June 1, 2014.

“The WIPO Rules have proven a robust yet flexible framework for resolving IP and technology disputes for parties and neutrals alike,” said Mr. Gurry. “The update of the Rules serves the WIPO Center’s goal to provide economical and productive dispute resolution procedures,” he said. “The latest provisions, for example on emergency relief and multiparty arbitration, ensure that the WIPO Rules respond to the evolution of technology, business, and legal conditions,” the Director General added.

In a separate development, the WIPO Center in December 2013 made available tailored model agreements that companies involved in the telecom industry may use to refer a dispute concerning the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms to WIPO Mediation and (Expedited) Arbitration. Aiming to facilitate cost- and time-effective FRAND adjudication, these model agreements were developed in consultation with patent law, standardization and arbitration experts from various jurisdictions, including some members and the Secretariat of the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI).

“We have seen some of the top filers under WIPO’s Patent Cooperation Treaty involved in smartphone wars in multiple jurisdictions,” said Mr. Gurry. “At the same time competition authorities in the United States and Europe are encouraging parties to resolve their disputes through ADR. By providing such an option, WIPO hopes to be of assistance to IP producers and consumers alike," he added. The WIPO Center maintains a special list of mediators, arbitrators and experts for patents in standards.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center - 2013 Review

Domain Name Dispute Resolution

WIPO cases in 2013 were filed by complainants and respondents from 109 countries. (Annex 2) Their cases were decided by 327 WIPO panelists from 50 countries, with 14 different languages of proceedings, namely (in order of frequency) English, Spanish, Chinese, French, German, Dutch, Portuguese, Turkish, Italian, Korean, Romanian, Russian, Japanese, and Swedish.

Among WIPO cases in 2013, country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) accounted for almost 13% of filings, up 1% from the previous year, with 70 national domain registries now connected to WIPO domain name dispute resolution services. In 2013, the WIPO Center became a provider for the .FM (Micronesia (Federated States of)), .GD (Grenada), and .ML (Mali) domain spaces.

The top three areas of complainant activity in 2013 remained retail, fashion, and banking and finance. Annex 3 The caseload featured many well-known names from business as well as public interest sectors, such as universities. Annex 4 Of the gTLD cases filed with WIPO in 2013, 66.4% concerned registrations in the .com domain, down by 8.5% in UDRP share, with .org and .net somewhat increasing theirs. Annex 5 Filings related to fashion and luxury brands again included cases where brand owners allege counterfeiting via the web pages under the domain name.

Parties settled around one out of five WIPO cases before reaching panel decision, resulting in a refund to filing parties of the panel fees. In 91% of cases ending with a panel decision, WIPO panels in 2013 ordered the transfer of the domain name to the trademark owner.

To assist their case preparation, WIPO parties took advantage of the Legal Index of WIPO UDRP Decisions and the Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions. The same online tools also serve the predictability of WIPO panel decisions.

New Generic Top Level Domains

During 2012, a variety of organizations and companies submitted to ICANN over 1,930 applications for some 1,400 distinct new domains as part of ICANN’s New gTLD Program. This included 116 applications for a total of 12 different language scripts using the Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) system. Delegation of the first new gTLDs into the Internet’s Root Zone took place in October 2013 and in early March had passed 160.

The WIPO Center assisted ICANN in the establishment of the substantive criteria for the LRO mechanism. The window for filing LRO objections closed in March 2013, with the Center receiving 69 LRO objections found to be procedurally compliant. The geographical spread of the filed LROs covered objectors from 11 jurisdictions and applicants from 17 jurisdictions. Annex 6 The WIPO Center notified the first LRO determinations to the parties in July 2013, and completed all LRO processing by early September 2013. In total, the WIPO Center appointed 49 expert panelists to the LRO cases. The appointed panelists spanned 17 nationalities, and between them had decided more than 6,000 WIPO UDRP decisions.

In a summary of panel findings, the WIPO LRO report notes that an overwhelming majority of LROs were filed against applications for gTLD strings with descriptive or dictionary meaning. Where a trademark owner has adopted a common dictionary term as a trademark, LRO panels found that an applied-for gTLD focusing on such common meaning would not as such violate the dispute resolution standards for LROs. Some panels expressed an expectation that the LRO objector (the trademark owner) would monitor future activity in the gTLD, with a view to possible later legal action.

Where the applicant’s use of an applied-for gTLD held potential for infringement, LRO panels focused on whether such use was unfair, unjust or impermissible. This test reflects the particular dynamics of the use of trademarks on the Internet.

The WIPO Center is in the process of implementing the ICANN Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure. This trademark-based mechanism aims to encourage responsible registry operator conduct once a domain has become operational.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation of Intellectual Property and Technology Disputes

The WIPO Center administers IP and technology disputes under the WIPO Mediation, Arbitration, Expedited Arbitration Rules, and Expert Determination Rules. WIPO case parties include large companies, small- and medium-sized enterprises, research organizations, and universities. Their disputes before the WIPO Center have involved a range of issues, such as patent infringement, patent licenses, information technology transactions (including telecommunications), distribution agreements for pharmaceutical and consumer products, copyright issues, research and development agreements, trademark co-existence agreements, media-related agreements, and disputes arising out of IP litigation settlement.

In addition to administering such cases under the WIPO Rules, the WIPO Center also engages in policy activities for the integration of ADR for Specific Sectors including franchising, information and communication technology and the area of research and development and technology transfer (R&D).

R&D and technology transfer involve a multitude of transactions, including research contracts, collaborative projects, licensing, joint ventures, alliances, spin-offs and buyer-supplier relationships. Such collaborations can involve complex legal, commercial or management issues. Research partners from different institutional backgrounds may have diverging understandings of creating, using and exploiting IP rights. Efficiency in R&D dispute resolution can contribute to the continuation of research activities and commercialization of research results. As a recent example of policy collaboration, in 2013 the Austrian Intellectual Property Agreement Guide (IPAG) launched a set of model agreements including WIPO ADR clauses.

The WIPO Center also offers guidance to intellectual property offices (IPOs) seeking to establish cost-effective dispute resolution frameworks. This activity follows the establishment of a mediation option for trademark oppositions at the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), under which a number of such mediations have successfully settled.

Background on the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Based in Geneva, Switzerland, with an office in Singapore, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center offers Alternative Dispute Resolution options for the resolution of international commercial disputes between private parties. The arbitration, mediation and expert determination procedures provided by the WIPO Center are recognized as particularly appropriate for technology, entertainment and other disputes involving IP.

The WIPO Rules are generally appropriate for all commercial disputes, and additionally feature provisions addressing specific needs in IP disputes, such as confidentiality, evidence, experiments, site visits, and trade secrets.

Committed to cost- and time-efficiency, the WIPO Center closely tracks user expectations. Parties to disputes submitted to the WIPO Center have the option of using the innovative WIPO Electronic Case Facility (WIPO ECAF), which allows for secure filing, storing and retrieval of case-related submissions in a web-based electronic case file, by parties and neutrals anywhere in the world.

Background on the UDRP

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which was proposed by WIPO in 1999 and has become accepted as an international standard for resolving domain name disputes outside the courts, is designed specifically to discourage and resolve the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names, commonly known as cybersquatting. Under the UDRP, a complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that the respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.

Disputes are decided by independent panelists drawn from the WIPO Center’s global list of trademark specialists. The domain name registration in question is frozen (suspended) during the proceedings. After reviewing a case, panelists submit their decision within a period of 14 days. If a panelist’s decision to transfer a domain name is not challenged in a competent court within a period of ten business days, the registrar is legally bound to implement the panelist’s decision. The entire case normally takes no more than about two months.

The WIPO Center is the leading global provider of domain name dispute resolution services and provides a range of resources for users and the general public. An illustration of these resources is the freely available WIPO jurisprudential Overview, which provides a distillation of panel findings in the thousands of domain name cases filed with WIPO. Parties, counsel and others around the world use this unique WIPO tool to find their bearings in the growing cybersquatting jurisprudence.

Article as  published in WIPO 

http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2014/article_0003.html