US industry wants India in IP rights violators list

American industry groups on Wednesday asked the US government to declare India as a Priority Foreign Country (PFC) — a dubious distinction given to violators of intellectual property (IP) rights.

The status could lead to imposition of trade sanctions in India. However, pressure notwithstanding, India has refused to enter into any kind of talks with the United States, calling its actions unilateral and outside the framework of WTO.

While the federal quasi-judicial agency, US International Trade Commission (USITC), is conducting a ‘fact-finding’ probe into India’s trade and investment policies, US Trade Representative (USTR) is investigating its IP regime on the allegations made by US industry lobbies.

The USITC has already heard American lobby groups and Indian industry representatives on the issue. India, on its part, has refused to entertain the USITC officials who wanted to meet senior functionaries of more than 14 departments and question them regarding the probe.

The ministry of external affairs has replied to the US embassy email saying that the meeting would not be possible due to the impending elections and closing of fiscal year.

The USITC reports form the basis of US trade policy.

Stepping up the pressure on India, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which represents about 50 US business groups, in a letter, has told the USTR that “this designation (PFC) appropriately would rank India among the very worst violators of intellectual property rights and establish a process leading to concrete solutions”.

Representatives of several influential trade bodies appeared before an inter-governmental panel led by the USTR on Monday making a case against India's trade practices.

Under the US Trade Act, a Priority Foreign Country is the worst classification given to foreign countries that deny adequate and effective protection of IPR or fair and equitable market access to US persons relying upon IPR protection. Trade experts have warned that such a designation would lead to further deterioration of relationship between the two countries.

As posted in Financial Express:

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/us-industry-wants-india-in-ip-rights-violators-list/1229435

Experts, pharma firms doubt US intellectual property ranking; India lowest among 25 countries

Intellectual property experts and generic drug firms in India have questioned the methodology and even the motive behind the US Chamber of Commerce's Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) index in which the nation has been ranked the lowest among 25 countries.

The ranking calls those IP regimes strong which, unlike that in India, continue to promote weak and trivial inventions, patent experts argued while trashing the index that yet again placed the country the lowest in its second edition released last week.

"Underlying this report is a major paradox that protecting weak patents makes the IP regime a strong one," IP expert Shamnad Basheer told. "Countries such as India that have stood up for genuine innovation and refused to protect trivial inventions have been accused of having 'weak' IP regimes while it should have been the other way round."

In its report which ranked the US, UK and France as the top upholders of intellectual property rights, the GIPC said, "India continues to have the weakest IP environment of all countries included in the Index.

Despite the 2010 declaration by the then-President of India that the next 10 years will be India's 'Decade of Innovation' the continued use of compulsory licenses, patent revocations, and weak legislative and enforcement mechanisms raise serious concerns about India's commitment to promote innovation and protect creators."

Experts pointed out that the charge of 'continued use of compulsory licenses' notwithstanding, India had granted only one such licence to domestic drug maker Natco Pharma in 2012 to make a generic version of Bayer's expensive cancer drug Nexavar.

Although the government has been considering compulsory licences for a few other expensive drugs, it is yet to take a final decision in any other case. Industry body Indian Pharma Alliance (IPA) has alleged that this index is a tool to push the interests of American companies in India.

"The GIPC is pushing the US government to take immediate steps to bring very serious pressures on Indian government for the benefit of American companies operating in India even at the cost of public health," said IPA secretary general DG Shah.

The report commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce was drafted by a boutique consultancy Pugatch Consilium, which, according to Shah, provides advisory services to top global drugmakers.

"It is understood that Pugatch Consilium is also advising big pharma companies (Pfizer, Novartis, Roche and Astra Zeneca) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA)," Shah said.

As posted in Economic Times:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-03/news/46962954_1_natco-pharma-nexavar-shamnad-basheer

TWITTER AND IBM

Twitter Inc has bought 900 patents and signed a cross-licensing agreement with IBM, making peace with Big Blue and bulking up on its intellectual property portfolio as it takes on larger rivals Google and Facebook. 

The agreement announced on Friday comes after International Business Machines Corp accused Twitter in November - on the eve of its high-profile initial public offering - of infringing three of its patents. At the time, it underscored how few patents the six-year-old social media company possessed in relation to more established rivals. 

A cross-licensing agreement will help safeguard Twitter against similar claims in the future. 

IBM is one of the industry's largest research spenders and stockpilers of intellectual property, a consistent leader in US patent filings and the owner of some 41,000 patents. 

Twitter is following on the heels of Facebook, which itself faced similar claims before its own 2012 IPO. The world's largest social network has since gone on a patent-buying spree, acquiring intellectual property from tech bellwethers, including Microsoft Corp and IBM. 

"This acquisition of patents from IBM and licensing agreement provide us with greater intellectual property protection and give us freedom of action to innovate on behalf of all those who use our service," Ben Lee, Twitter's legal director, said in a joint statement with IBM on Friday. 

As posted in Economic Times:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/twitter-buys-900-patents-seals-licensing-pact-with-ibm/articleshow/29670779.cms

Facebook Privacy Notice

For those of you that do not understand this posting, Facebook is now a publicly traded entity. Anyone can infringe on your right to privacy once you post on this site. It is recommended that you and other members post a similar notice to this or you may copy and paste this one. Protect yourself, this is now a publicly traded site.

================================

PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee, agent, student or any personnel under your direction or control.

The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law.

UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.


[Collected via Facebook, November 2012]

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention).

For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!

(Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws, By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook's direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates


[Collected via Facebook, June 2013]

On June 24, 2013, by making full use of my mental faculties and my ownership of this account in Facebook, I declare, to whom it may concern, and in particular to the administrator of the company Facebook, my author rights which are related to all my personal information, comments, texts, articles, illustrations, comics, paintings, photos, professional videos and other publications in electronic format that I spread on this site under my signature. The above on the basis of the principle enshrined in the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works, as well as with regard to the respective national copyright law. For commercial use of the aforementioned items, always must be by my written consent. By this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. These prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents or members of any team, under the direction or control of Facebook. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308 - 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). Note: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. Do not share; copy and paste


[Collected via e-mail, October 2013]

Channel 13 News was just talking about this change in Facebook's privacy policy. Better safe than sorry. As of October 14, 2013 at 5:50pm Eastern standard time, I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, or posts, both past and future. By this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. You MUST copy and Paste


Origins:   Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall are similar to an item which circulated several years ago positing that posting a similar notice on a web site would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy. In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief that the use of some simple legal talisman — knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer — will immunize one from some undesirable
legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way.

Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, the fact that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an "open capital entity" has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status.

Further, the concerns about copyright ownership which these types of notices are intended to address are unfounded. In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced the company was considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, Facebook issued a statement noting:
There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more - www.facebook.com/policies.
Similarly, ABC News reported:
[Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] — unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media.

"We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. "Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings."

Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] "misleading and not true." He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a "non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything."
As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights:
The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)."

Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game.
Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You cannot alter your acceptance of that agreement, nor can you restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement, simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account or citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.)

If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options:
Decline to sign up for a Facebook account.
Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook.
Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section.
Cancel your Facebook account.
(Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.)

fIND MORE dETAILS ON
http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp

Tirumala Milk sold to Le Groupe Lactalis

 Le Groupe Lactalis , the world's largest dairy group, has bought out Hyderabad-based Tirumala Milk Products  for $275 million (Rs 1,750 crore), two people with knowledge of the development said.

The French dairy group has bought the 74% stake held by Tirumala Milk's founders and the rest 26% from private equity  investor Carlyle Growth Capital Fund.



"We always wanted to build the largest dairy product company. I am sure Lactalis Group, which is the largest company in the world, will make the Tirumala the largest in India also," said Danda Brahmanandam, Tirumala's founder and managing director who along with his three partners holds controlling stake.

Tirumala Milk, which clocked Rs 1,427 crore in sales last fiscal, is the second largest milk supplier in south India. Its processing units across Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have a cumulative capacity of 1.2 million litres a day.

"For Lactalis, this acquisition is the first step. We believe India is a great opportunity. We will expand in other parts of the country," Lactalis spokesperson Michel NALET told ET.

The companies did not divulge the financial details of the deal.

The deal gives the French company an entry into the world's largest diary market, which produces 123 million tonnes of milk every year. The industry is expected to grow to 190 MT by 2015.
Family-owned Lactalis, with annual sales of 15.7b (Rs 1.33 lakh crore), signed the deal on Tuesday which it will soon make public, a Tirumala executive said.

The Indian diary market, which accounts for about 20% of the global milk production , is pegged at Rs 60,000 crore. It is expected to grow at a compounded annual growth rate of 13% to 15% until fiscal 2019-20.

Carlyle, which had invested $22 million in Tirumala in May 2010, valuing the company at $85 million, made a three-fold return with a net profit of $50 million.

"Carlyle has always believed in supporting good companies and in helping them in improving systems and processes and governance to take it to the next level," said Shankar Narayanan, MD, Carlyle India.

Carlyle has invested and committed approximately $1.1 billion in India until September 30, 2013.

Rothschild was the advisor in the deal for Lectalis while Tirumala's investment banker was Barclays .

Nestle seeking a patent over Indian Traditional Home Remedies

The age-old Indian home remedy of dadima ka nuskha (grandma’s advice) using kala jeera or kalaunji to treat many ailments might not be as freely available if a Nestle move comes off.

The Swiss-based food and beverage giant is seeking patent protection in various parts of the world for using an extract from kala jeera (also known as fennel flower, Nigella sativa , black seed and black cumin) for treating or preventing food allergy, mainly in children.

The company says it has discovered a new use for fennel flower seeds. However, the move has triggered a global campaign against Nestle. Health activists and those trying to protect traditional knowledge are saying it’s an attempt to monopolise traditional medicine.

When asked, Nestlé’s global office denied the company was trying to patent Nigella Sativa. “We have discovered that an extract from Nigella Sativa seeds might help to reduce the severity and symptoms of food allergy. This is achieved through a biological interaction that stimulates the body’s opioid receptors. In 2009, we applied for a patent to protect the use of molecules which act on opioid receptors for treating or preventing food allergy. We have not filed a patent on Nigella Sativa,” Nestle SA’s corporate spokesperson Philippe Aeschlimann
                                                                    “We fully support the principle of fair access and benefit-sharing as described in the Nagoya Protocol of 2010 and the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992. We have put in place a number of measures to ensure that we respect the principle of fair access to the raw materials. Additionally, all of our suppliers of raw materials must comply with all national laws and international agreements.”

The company maintains the patent, if approved, would not prevent the use of kala jeera for any other purpose, including traditional uses and natural remedies.

Critics
However, those opposing the move do not agree. “In claiming use of Nigella Sativa against food allergies, Nestlé’s scientists have not innovated beyond what was already known in traditional medicine from Egypt to India and beyond. Moreover, prior to Nestlé’s claim, researchers in those countries used formal scientific methods to demonstrate the efficacy of traditional use of black seed to treat allergy symptoms,”

According to sources, Nestle published an international patent application in Europe and similar applications might exist in other nations but are yet to be published. Nestle did not respond to the specific query on countries where it had applied for patent protection.

Chandrakant Bhanushali, general secretary, Ayurvedic Drug Manufacturers Association, says multinationals and big domestic companies are increasingly posing a threat to traditional knowledge as more products are developed based on the latter. “Companies are tweaking traditional and natural products with huge investments and labelling these as new products. This is emerging as a big threat for ayurvedic drug manufacturers because awareness is less on traditional medicines.”

India has strongly opposed patentability of traditional knowledge and products. In 2005, the European Patent Office rejected an appeal filed by the US Department of Agriculture and a multinational corporation, W R Grace, to revocation of a patent on a neem-based crop fungicide, earlier granted in 2000.

As posted in Business Standard

For more news click on the link below: 

http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/nestle-seeks-patent-for-kala-jeera-114010700965_1.html

                                                     

Aristo Wins Order Barring Innova CapTab’s Use of ‘Montinal’ Mark

Innova Cap Tab was accused of copying a trademark.

The Bombay High Court has restrained Innova Cap Tab and its sister companies 
from manufacturing and marketing any medicinal preparation or product by using the mark ‘MONTINAL’, which is identical to a registered trademark of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd.
The order was passed by Justice S J Kathawala recently after Aristo approached the 
court accusing Innova Cap Tab and others for infringing its trademark.
The court observed that Aristo has made out a prima facie case in their favour. 
The balance of convenience is also in their favour. “In view thereof, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the defendants (Innova Cap Tab) are restrained from infringing 
the trademark of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd,” said justice Kathawala.

In December 2002, Aristo got the trademark ‘MONTINA’ registered in its name. 
In June 2013, it started manufacturing of the preparation in the form of syrups and
 tablets and has been selling it since August 2013.
However, in September 2013, it came across an identical preparation MONTINAL, 
which was being sold by Innova. This prompted Aristo to move the HC.
Innova claimed it had got MONTINAL registered in 2008, saying the prefix ‘MONT’ 
was taken from the principal drug ‘Montelukast’ and ‘INA’ from the name of the company 
ANIKEM. It also claimed that at the time, Aristo’s products were not available in 
the market.The court accepted Aristo’s contention that Innova had merely stated 
as to how it had coined MONTINAL and not raised a specific plea to prove that the 
mark was generic. Once a mark is registered, it is not open to any person so long as
 it remains on the Register. To contend that the same has been derived from its generic drug is invalid, Justice Kathawala added.