The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed, held that challenge to Controller's refusal to application for Exclusive Marketing Rights of GSK is maintainable even though the Act under which EMR application could be granted was repealed on January 1, 2005.
GSK has filed a black box application in respect of product patents in 1998, as before 2005 product patent application were neither examined not Granted, GSK in the year 2000 filed an EMR application for grant of exclusive license to market the product in India for 5 year. The application was rejected in 2002 against which GSK preferred a writ petition before High Court. In 2004 the matter was decided in favour of GSK by the High Court and Ld. Single Judge was pleased to allow re-examination of the EMR application of GSK. However, pursuant to order of the High Court, the application for EMR was re-examined and was again rejected on 28-12-2004 just 3 days before the provision relating to EMR was repealed by the Indian Patents Act, 2005.
GSK again preferred a writ petition against the order of the Controller rejecting the EMR application, the said writ was objected in view of repealing of provision relating to EMR as India started examining as well as Granting product patent applications in the Patents (Amendment) 2005 Act. It was contended by the Patent office that 2005 Amendment has repealed the provision for granting EMR, therefore leaving no scope for further consideration of the EMR application and in view of Section 78 of the Patent (Amendment) Act 2005, the pending applications for grant of EMR filed before January 01, 2005 i.e. GSK's application for EMR shall be deemed to be as a request for Examination for grant of patent.
Section 78 of the Amending Act reads as follow:
78. Transitional Provision- (1) Notwithstanding the omission of Chapter IVA of the principal Act by section 21 of this Act, every application for the grant of exclusive marketing rights filed under that Chapter before the 1st day of January, 2005, in respect of a claim for a patent covered under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the principal Act, such application shall be deemed to be treated as a request for examination for grant of patent under sub-section (3) of section 11B of the principal Act, as amended by this Act.
This was contested by GSK, saying that on January 01, 2005 no such application for Grant of EMR was pending, in fact the application was disposed off even before the amending provision came into effect. Therefore right to challenge the impugned order rejecting the EMR application before any appropriate forum vested in Petitioner before the amending provision of Act came into effect, hence said Section 78 of the Amending Act has no application to the facts of the case. But the High court differed and decided the matter in favour of the Controller of Patents.
GSK filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of India against the said order of the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that the Amending Act is silent on the issue of maintainability of pending proceedings initiated under the repealed Act, therefore provision of the General Clauses Act of 1897 shall apply.
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 reads as follows:
6. Effect of repeal.- Where this Act , or any Act made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-
c). affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
The above provision makes it amply clear that where any enactment is repealed, it shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed, unless, a different intention appears. Accordingly the Supreme Court held the GSK's petition was maintainable.
Now possible to file request for Certified Copies of Designs through e-filing Module
Trademark Amendment Rules 2017 notified from March 6, 2017 and increased fee under many heads and simplified filing procedure by reducing forms
Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 notified with effect from May 16, 2016
E-filing facility for applications for registration of Geographical Indications Introduced in India
Electronic filing system for new applications for registration of Designs introduced, only new application can be filed online
Design Amendment Rules notified, now three categories of Applicant (natural person, small entity and others) similar to Patents Act.
Indian Patent Office starts functioning as International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the PCT from 15th October 2013
Under Patent Amendment Rules, the Indian Govt has proposed increasing the Govt fee for various Patent fee by 100%. Besides a 10% surcharge is to be levied where hard copy of documents is filed.
The Copyright Rules, 2013 have been notified and has come into force with effect from March 14, 2013
Various fee related to copyright filing, prosecution, licensing have been enhanced under the Copyright Rules 2013 with effect from March 14, 2013
The deadline to file statement as to working of Patents in India in respect of financial year 2014 on Form 27 is March 31, 2015
Vide public notice no. 15 of 2012 dated July 2, 2012, the Controller General has simplified process of filing of PCT national phase Applications in India specially where PCT Application is published in English Language.
The Copyright Act, 1957 has been amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012
India's first ever compulsory license awarded to Natco Pharma against Bayer Corporation for Nexavar Drug
Nice Classification, 10th edition to come into force with effect from January 1, 2012: Part I, List of Goods and Services in Class Order
Trademark Registry to reconstitute 44,404 missing trademark files
Scanned copy of Reponse to Examination reports be send by email to Trademark Registry to facilitate early consideration
13-01-2011 Trademark (Amendment) Rules 2010 came into force with effect from December 29, 2010, Official fee enhanced to Rs. 3500, Search and certificate issuance discontinued
Centralised Registration issuance and dispatch of Registration Certificates from Mumbai Registry to clear pending backlog of 75000 Trademark Registrations by March 31, 2011
Draft Rules Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2010 set to change the format of Patent filing in India and to introduce fees for certain filing activities
Trademark Office allows oppurtunity where Registered mark has been removed for non payment of renewal fee where certificate was not issued/ received
The draft Trademark (Amendment) Rules 2010 sought to enhance official fee to Rs. 3500 (40%) and make trademark search free
Specification of services of Trademarks applications/ registrations in class 42 to be revised/ converted in view of new classes 43, 44, 45 introduced
The PCT Working Group, at its third session held from June 14 to 18, 2010, agreed on a number of proposed amendments of the Regulations under the PCT
India has now made available to the public the Prosecution History, Complete Specification and Examination Reports of published patent application and all details including e- Register in case of granted patents
User affidavit where any user is claimed along with new/ Pending applications may be filed before Delhi TM Registry for expediting processing
All 45 International Classes introduced in India,earlier class 43, 44 and 45 were merged in class 42
Patent Office published the details of Pharmaceutical product patents granted during last three years
Patent Office published details of Pharmaceutical product patents granted to Foreign Applicants during last three years
Controller General has directed Patent office to made available Patent files to public on payment of prescribed fee
Details of non receipt of First Examination Report of any such applications where Request for Examination (RQs) have been filed on or before 31-12.2006 be informed to Technical Heads
All patentee and licenees directed to furnish information regarding working of patent on FORM 27, by 31st March 2010
Directions issued to Trademarks Registry to communicate reasons and next date of hearing while adjourning proceedings
The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks has issued circular to rationalise the allotment of patent applications for examination in order to improve the quality of patent examination four different groups with different specialisation form
Certificate by TM Registry in respect of copyright in respect of any artistic work used or capable of being used in respect of goods to be issued by respective registries from April 1, 2009
Orders in Trademark Oppositions to be passed within 3 months of final hearing
Orders in Patent Oppositions to be passed within 3 months for post grant and 1 month for Pre Grant from date of final hearing
In exercise of power confereed by Section 47 of the Designs Act, 2000, the central Govt amended the Rules
salient features of the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 as applicable for foreign Applicant in India
Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.
Mere posting of the letter on the website does not constitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing as required by Rule 38(4) of Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The Mumbai HC held that placing the notice of the website does not constitute compliance with that Rule 38(4) of the said Rules.
Object of grant of patent is to encourage scientific research, new technology and industrial progress and for that object exclusive privilege is granted. At the same time before awarding patent for any invention it has to be considered that the invention must be novel, must involve an inventive step and must have industrial application.
The expression “inventive step” is predominantly used for instance in European Union while the expression “non- obviousness” is predominantly used in United States of America. The assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another while the underlying basic principal remains the same.
Delhi high court upheld Judgement directing restoration and renewal of trademark MBD, 29 years after due date of renewal. Notice on form O3 is must intimating the registered proprietor about the deadline of renewal and consequence thereof.
Section 33 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that if the earlier Registered Proprietor has acquiesced for a continuous period of 5 years in the use of a registered trademark, being aware of that use, he is not entitled to either seek invalidation of such later mark or oppose its use in relation to goods or services in relation to which it has been so used, unless registration of such mark was applied in bad faith.
Definition: Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.
Trade dress refers to characteristics of the visual or sensual appearance of a product that may also include its packaging which may be registered and protected from being used by competitors in relation to their business and services.
The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed...
Delhi High Court in Double Coin Holdings Ltd. Vs. Trans Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd. elaborately dealt with the issue as to who has right over a trademark, manufacturer or distributor/ importer
Delhi High Court held amendment in claims as allowed in another suit can not be allowed in a pending suit without amending plaint.
Computer Software & Business Method Patents In India: India does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme “per se” or algorithms.
Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.To interpret the doctrine of obviousness it is necessary to first understand the objective of grant of Patent.
"Non-obviousness" is the term for “inventive step” used in US patent law and codified under 35 U.S.C. §103. Thereby implying that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.
Inventions pertaining to microorganisms and other Biological material were subjected to product patent in India unlike many developed countries. But with effect from 20.05.2003 India has started granted patents to invention related to microorganisms.
Compulsory Licence For Patents In India: Any interested person after expiry of 3 years from grant of patent even though if he is a license under the patent, may make an application to the Controller for grant of compulsory license
The Government of India is finalising a system that will prevent generic manufactures from getting marketing approval to sell patented drugs in India.
India like European Union does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme "per se" or algorithms. The relevant provision under the Indian Patents Act reads as under...
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Indian arm of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd had challenged the constitutionality of India's customs regulations governing the import of IP goods in Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition. More precisely it has challenged the custom notification no. 47/2007 Customs (N.T.) dated 08.05.2007 called Intellectual Property Right (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect of one cause of action and not the other.
Supreme Court held that a composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise. Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code specifically states so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same should be ignored.
Supreme Court held that for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a court only because two causes of action joined in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same would not mean that thereby the jurisdiction can be conferred upon a court which had jurisdiction to try only the suit in respect of one cause of action and not the other. Recourse to the additional forum, however, in a given case, may be taken if both the causes of action arise within the jurisdiction of the
5 Bench of Supreme Court held that Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
Delhi High Court held that written permit in terms of Section 39 is a mandatory requirement for filing Application outside India and therefore PCT application, even if complete in all other respects cannot be given a filing date earlier than the date on which the written permit in terms of Section 39 is issued.
The Chennai High Court held that the time prescribed under Rule 20 for filing national phase PCT Application in India is 31 months from priority date, and the period, which could be extended by taking into consideration of facts and circumstances, is one month under Rule 138. The application for extension is required to be made within the period prescribed. Therefore, proviso would come into operation for the purpose of calculating period of one month. On true interpretation of rule 138, it is h
The Controller of Patents Granted India’s first Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited in respect of Patent no. 215758 of Bayer Corporation.
Delhi High Court set Guidelines to determine jurisdiction in Internet related cases
Kolkata High Court held no interim order if no economic loss shown by disparaging advertisement
Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Appeal to set aside injunction in declaratory suit
Agreeing with Single Judge's Consideration to adverse impact of grant of injunction on life saving drugs Delhi High Court imposed Cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Appellant
Supreme Court allows appeal of Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. owner of FM Radia “Radio Mirchi” against M/s Super Cassette Industries Ltd owner of “T-Series” and refers matter back to Copyright Board for compulsory license
Supreme Court of India, Appeal against Pre Grant opposition order to be heard by High Court though Patent Act amended and IPAB came into existence
Delhi High Court declines Cadila Healthcare's plea to restrain use of 'Sugar Free'
Supreme Courts Bars Challenge To “Peter Scot” On Principles Of Acquiescence And/ Or Waiver
Supreme Court allowed temporary breather against criminal prosecution for “lakhani” for false lodging complaint under copyright as well as trademark act
Passing off action can be instituted in case of Registered Design, but a composite suit for infringement and passing off of design would not lie
Delhi High Court vacated interim injunction and directs defendants to maintain accounts of manufacture, sale and supply
United States Patents and Trademarks Office has awarded “MIGHTY MOUSE” trademark to Man & Machine causing Apple to Abandon it for its products
No balance of convenience or irreparable loss Chennai High Court set aside Injunction granted by Single Judge of High Court
In four clubbed cases by Microsoft Corporation against different defendants Delhi High Court allowed ex parte stay and directed Microsoft to pay cost security in case allegations of copyright piracy found speculative
Full Bench Delhi High Court held that existence of a design registered abroad in a convention country is not a ground under Section 19(1)(a) for cancellation of a design registered in India. Further registered design if intentionally brought into the public domain without any breach of faith, no longer remains new as per provisions of Indian Design Act.
Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed, held that Challenge to a provision accrued before it is repealed is maintainable if the repealing act is silent
Mumbai High Court (DB) held that mere posting of the letter on website does not constitute communication of objection as required by rule 38(4) under the Trademark Rules.
Delhi High Court in a Letter Patent Appeal upheld the single Judge Order that issuance of notice on Form O3 mandatory before removing the mark. Restoration period to be counted from date of removal from Register not from due date of renewal
Injunction can also be sought in case of threatened use of a Trademark
Amendment of claims in infringement Suit not permissible without amending the plaint even if such amendment has been allowed in some earlier suit
In Re: BERNARD L. BILSKI; United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lays down mahcine transformation test for business method patents
One of the oldest Judgments related to denial of Copyright in Design for prior use passed by Kolkata High Court
Delhi High Court held no exclusive rights over descriptive/ common words
Delhi High Court on Appeal held that suit once instituted by a litigant, has to be disposed of strictly as per the procedure prescribed in the Code and not in a cursory or summary fashion
Madras High Court held that Plaintiff is not entitled for injunction and instead issued directions to respondents to maintain accounts of the TV mega serial Thangam in Tamil which is being screened till the serial is over and file the statement of accounts in respect of the episodes already screened and also in respect of the serials produced in any other language on the basis of the same script, to maintain and file statement of accounts when they are called upon to produce.
Supreme Court of India rejects Novartis Patent for Beta Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate being violative of Section 2(1) (j), (ja) as well as 3(d) of Indian Patent Act in view of the earlier Patent for Imatinib free salt