-
Continue reading →: PIL on working disclosure requirements
It is given fact that every patentee and licensee is required to file a statement of commercial working of active granted Indian patent under Section 146(2) of the Indian Patents Act for the calendar year on or before March 31 of the next year in the format prescribed by the Act.…
-
Continue reading →: IPAB ADMITS APPEALS ON ORDERS ISSUED UNDER NON-APPEALABLE PROVISIONS
In two landmark cases,the Intellectual Property Appellate Board treated orders issued under non-appealable provisions of section 11(B) (4) and 77(f) as appealable. The first such order was issued under section 11(B) (4) treating an application for patent as ‘deemed withdrawn’ for failure to file the request for examination within the prescribed…
-
Continue reading →: DASATINIB: Injunction to continue against BDR
On 29th June, 2015, Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court upheld BMS’ patent for anti-cancer drug Dasatinib (marketed as Sprycel). The order was passed in Bristol-Myers Squibb vs. BDR Pharma case of interim injunction, which is a quia timet action filed by the Plaintiffs. BMS had filed a suit…
-
Continue reading →: Delhi Registry/Bench of IPAB inaugurated
Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was set up in 2003 with its headquarters in Chennai. The IPAB at Chennai was the only Registry and filings of all Jurisdictions (Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta and Chennai) were made in Chennai up till now. The IPAB did have its Bench sittings in Delhi, Mumbai,…
-
Continue reading →: iBall restricted from importing handsets to India;Ericsson directed to negotiate FRAND license with iBall
The Delhi High Court restricts imports by iBall including mobile handsets and tablets in Ericsson vs. iBall interim order. This is similar to the case filed by Ericsson against Micromax, in which the court had ordered the Indian handset maker to pay royalty as an interim measure. In the present case,…
-
Continue reading →: Tofacitinib caught in section 3(d) turmoil
The Controller of Patents, Mumbai issued an order rejecting a patent application of Pfizer for Tofacitinib for the second time. The primary ground for rejection of Tofacitinib was Section 3(d) and the Controller relied on the Supreme Court’s order on the Glivec case. The Controller said that the claimed form is an…
-
Continue reading →: Second generation Tygacil granted a Patent
The Indian Patent Office issued its order dismissing two pregrant oppositions filed by NATCO and Lupin against Wyeth for their commercial product, Tygacil. The application claims a composition comprising: (a) tigecycline; (b) a carbohydrate chosen from lactose, mannose, sucrose and glucose; and (c) and an acid or buffer, the molar ratio…
Greetings
Welcome to Patents Rewind, Anand and Anand’s Patents and Designs blog that offers you an Indian perspective on issues surrounding patent and design eligibility and enforcement through latest case law and developments in the Indian patents and designs landscape.
Let’s connect
Join us!
Stay updated with our posts.
