- Advertising
- Asia
- Bangladesh
- Biological Inventions
- BRAND VALUATION
- China
- Comparative Advertisement
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Marketing Rights
- DRM
- Geographical Indication
- India
- Indian Patents Act
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Interim Injunction
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- Japan
- Legal Issues
- Licensing
- Malaysia
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- Net Neutrality
- News & Updates
- Office
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Cooperation Treaty
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patent Term Extension
- Patents
- pharma
- Philippines
- Punitive Damages
- Section 3(D)
- section 64
- Singapore
- South-east Asia
- Technology
- Technology Transfer
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Litigation
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
Abolishment of IPAB: Changes to the IP Regime
Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was constituted by the Central Government on 15 September 2003, to hears appeals against the decisions of Registrar under the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and the Geographical Indications of Goods Act (Registration and Protection), 1999.[1] After four years, in 2007 the IPAB jurisdiction was extended to the Patents Act, 1970. … Continue reading Abolishment of IPAB: Changes to the IP Regime
Read more »The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021- A Systematic Ban on IPAB
Introduction India might be one of the leading countries in the world in terms of the backlog of court cases. Even after some of the best efforts made by the government to improve the situation, it is still like a merry-go-round. One such effort was the system of tribalization which was meant to reduce the … Continue reading The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021- A Systematic Ban on IPAB
Read more »Interpretation of the Term “Aggrieved Person” Under Section 47 of Trade Mark Act, 1999
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case Adidas AG v Union of India and Anr vide W.P.(C) 3125/2013 set aside the impugned ex parte order by IPAB dated 28th December 2012 and remanded the matter to IPAB for fresh consideration. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: In the instant case, Petitioner has trademark “RESPONSE” … Continue reading Interpretation of the Term “Aggrieved Person” Under Section 47 of Trade Mark Act, 1999
Read more »Plant Varieties and Farmers‟ Rights Act, 2001
January 14, 2016 - 1:25 pm
Categories:
India
IPAB
IPAB Decisions
News & Updates
Trademark
0 Comments
Ministry of Agriculture & IPAB failure in invoking the transitional provision as provided under Section 59 of The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers‟ Rights Act, 2001 for setting up a tribunal. INTRODUCTION The variety of crops both edible and for commercial purposes has grown as the size and need of the human population has … Continue reading Plant Varieties and Farmers‟ Rights Act, 2001
Read more »Revocation of Valganciclovir patent by Controller of Patents, Chennai
August 1, 2015 - 9:46 am
Categories:
IPAB
IPAB Decisions
News & Updates
Patent Opposition
Patents
pharma
Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
Section 3(D)
0 Comments
Recently in a matter remanded from IPAB to Controller of Patents, Chennai, a decision of revoking Roche’s patent IN207232 for Valganciclovir was delivered after hearing both the parties. The subject patent was granted on January, 2009 followed which post grant oppositions were separately filed by CIPLA, Matrix, Ranbaxy and Bakul Pharma along with two NGOs … Continue reading Revocation of Valganciclovir patent by Controller of Patents, Chennai
Read more »Cipla & BMS may settle patent dispute over Entecavir in India
May 30, 2015 - 12:16 pm
Categories:
IPAB
IPAB Decisions
News & Updates
patent infringement
Patents
pharma
0 Comments
US-based pharma major Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) and Indian pharma company Cipla Ltd. are heading towards an amicable settlement on a long-stretched patent dispute concerning BMS’ hepatitis B drug Entecavir, a leading anti-viral drug for Hepatitis B patients that brings in more than a billion dollars each year globally for BMS. Entecavir, being a pre-1995 molecule, … Continue reading Cipla & BMS may settle patent dispute over Entecavir in India
Read more »Recent decision of IPAB in the case of E.I.DU Pont De Nemours & Company V. Galpha Laboratories and Ors
December 26, 2014 - 8:55 am
Categories:
IPAB
IPAB Decisions
News & Updates
Trademark
Trademark Litigation
0 Comments
This article is related to a recent judgment of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter IPAB) dated 4th December 2014 in the case “E.I.DU Pont De Nemours & Company V. Galpha Laboratories and Ors.” Brief Facts: On 11th March 2009, the trademark registry refused the opposition of the E.I.DU Pont De Nemours & Company (appellant … Continue reading Recent decision of IPAB in the case of E.I.DU Pont De Nemours & Company V. Galpha Laboratories and Ors
Read more »Indian Patent office rejects Patent claim over Abraxane
In a major setback, the Indian Patent Office denied a patent to an anti-cancer drug Abraxane manufactured by US-Based Abraxis BioSciences. Here we will discuss the decision given by IPO at the backdrop of the arguments advanced by the respective parties. Background In a brief, Patent application no. 2899/DELNP/2005 filed by Abraxis Biosciences was earlier … Continue reading Indian Patent office rejects Patent claim over Abraxane
Read more »M/s Aditi Manufacturing Company v/s Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel , Section(64) patent act, 1970
May 22, 2014 - 8:13 am
Categories:
India
IP Litigation
IP Practice in India
IPAB
IPAB Decisions
News & Updates
Patents
section 64
0 Comments
Takshasheel Bouddha, an intern at Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys, analyses the case, M/s Aditi Manufacturing Company v/s Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel &The Controllers of Patents & Designs. This judgment is with respect to Section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970. Introduction: The dispute was regarding two patents i.e. Patent No.189027 and Patent … Continue reading M/s Aditi Manufacturing Company v/s Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel , Section(64) patent act, 1970
Read more »