- Advertising
- Asia
- Bangladesh
- Biological Inventions
- BRAND VALUATION
- China
- Comparative Advertisement
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Data Protection
- Design
- Digital Marketing Rights
- DRM
- Electronics
- 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
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
Why Protecting Patents in India is Giving Hard Time to Drug Patent Holders
May 22, 2014 - 10:34 am
Categories:
India
IP Litigation
News & Updates
Patent Litigation
Patents
Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
0 Comments Introduction A lot has been discussed on the Novartis ruling indicating much higher standards of patentability under Indian law under section 3d. The ruling decided that any new form of known compound (in medicine) would be patentable only if there is enhanced ‘therapeutic efficacy’ over the known compound. Post Novartis ruling, a couple of patent … Continue reading Why Protecting Patents in India is Giving Hard Time to Drug Patent Holders
Read more »Inherent Anticipation: In re Montgomery
The Federal Circuit in this case addressed the issue of anticipation by inherency in the context of the method of treatment claims. The panel affirmed that a claim to ‘a new use for a known compound’ was inherently anticipated by a reference which disclosed a plan for a proposed clinical trial that had not been … Continue reading Inherent Anticipation: In re Montgomery
Read more »DataCard Corporation Vs Eagle Technologies – Part 1
Introduction: It is a direct Patent Infringement case, the claimant “Data card Corporation” (Datacard) sued Eagle technologies for infringing its couple of patents: UK 1458572 (‘572) and UK 1534530 (‘530) and also a couple of trademarks: UK 1399698 (‘698) and UK 1399699 (‘699). When I was searching case laws to understand the degree of obviousness, … Continue reading DataCard Corporation Vs Eagle Technologies – Part 1
Read more »Claim Construction – Interpretation to Determine Obviousness
The present case relates to reexamination (Reexamination No. 90/008,482) of US Patent No. 5, 236, 503, referred to as ‘503 hereinafter. The concerned Applicant GLATT AIR TECHNIQUES, INC. (referred to as Glatt hereinafter) appealed against the order of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which was decided on 5’th Jan 2011. As an introduction, … Continue reading Claim Construction – Interpretation to Determine Obviousness
Read more »Actavis and Novartis
ACTAVIS’ “EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS” AFFIRMED ACTAVIS UK vs NOVARTIS AG The High Court, Court of Appeal has recently upheld a decision on Appeal from the High Court, Patents Court, that the Novartis’s European Patent (UK) 0948320, a sustained release formulation of Fluvastatin (a Cholesterol lowering drug), is invalid on the ground of obviousness. Earlier in … Continue reading Actavis and Novartis
Read more »