Snippet: Dr.Reddy’s Sued for Patent Infringement in the US by AbbVie Inc

According to several news reports, Dr.Reddy’s Labs (DRL) has been sued by AbbVie Inc. and Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation in the US District Court of Delaware for infringement of three patents on the drug Zemplar (Paricalcitol) and its injectable forms. The drug is used to treat secondary hyper-parathyroidism associated with chronic renal failure.

In May 2013, DRL informed AbbVie of the filing of its Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for injectable forms of Zemplar. In the same letter, DRL also stated, inter alia, its opinion that the three patents were invalid. Predictably, AbbVie has taken the position that filing of the ANDA application prior to the expiry of the three patents is an act of infringement.

We will keep our readers posted on the developments in this Hatch-Waxman litigation.

Breaking News: Interim Injunction Against Barfi Denied

Readers would recall that the movie BARFI had landed in legal trouble for use of the Murphy trademark in the film. The owner of the mark, Murphy Enterprises, had instituted a suit for trademark infringement after the release of the movie before the Principal District Judge of North Goa at Panaji last year, seeking interim injunction against the movie.

Arguments on interim injunction concluded in December 2012.  We have now reliably learnt that the Principal District Judge of North Goa has dismissed Murphy’s application for interim injunction. Details of the order are awaited. We will keep readers informed of further developments. 

Bajaj v. TVS: Chennai Patent Office Rejects Bajaj’s Pre-grant Opposition to TVS Patent Application

In a 13-page order dated November 21, 2012, the Chennai Patent Office rejected Bajaj Auto Limited’s pre-grant opposition against TVS’s application numbered 78/CHE/2004 on “Automatic Device for Providing Optimum Ignition Timing Characteristics for SI Engines”. Under Rule 55(6), a patent was granted to TVS.

The copy of the order which has been uploaded on the website of the Patent Office is not reader-friendly since portions of the order are missing. Also, the order does not make itself amenable to analysis since the prior art references (cited by Bajaj) alluded to in the order have not been identified.

I would be grateful to readers if someone could share with me the references cited by Bajaj against TVS’s application.

In all likelihood, Bajaj is bound to appeal against the grant of the patent or file a post-grant opposition. This promises to be yet another battle between the two-wheeler giants.

Snippet: Supreme Court Issues Notice to Govt. in Student's PIL Challenging Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000

The legality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the provision has been interpreted on this blog here and here), has been challenged in a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) before the Supreme Court by a Delhi-based law student, Ms.Shreya Singhal.

The PIL has been admitted by the Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Altamas Kabir. The Apex Court has issued notice to the Government, and the Attorney General has been asked to respond tomorrow, November 30, 3012.

Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the arrests of two girls over a Facebook comment, the Government seems to have finally woken up to the mischievous application of the provision, and has reportedly issued guidelines governing the application of the Section 66A.

According to news reports, prior approval from an officer of DCP level in rural areas and IG level in metropolitan areas will need to be sought before a complaint is registered under Section 66A. The practical efficacy of these guidelines has been questioned by practitioners of the law.

For now, it would be interesting to see the Government's stance before the Supreme Court on the provision tomorrow. 

Snippet: ToI Reports Sutent/Sunitinib Matter Remanded to the Patent Office by Supreme Court

The Times of India has today reported that the Supreme Court has remanded the Sutent patent matter to the Patent Office for a hearing, and also set aside the injunction on Cipla's Sunitinib. This means the revocation of the Sutent patent of Sugen Inc has been set aside. The effect of this on proceedings for alleged infringement remains to be seen.

Snippet: Indian Express Reports on SC’s Sunitinib Order

I had blogged yesterday on the setting aside of the Sutent revocation order, and lifting of injunction on Cipla from manufacturing its drug Sunitinib.

Today, the Indian Express has reported on lifting of the restraint on Cipla. The news report, however, does not mention anything about setting aside of the revocation order of the Sutent patent. I guess only a reading of the SC's order will clarify the true position. 

Breaking News: Supreme Court Sets Aside Revocation of Patent on Sunitinib?

The news is just rushing in about the Supreme Court proceedings in the Sunitinib matter. It appears that the Apex Court has set aside the order of revocation of the patent on Sunitinib.

Also, from what I am told, the Delhi High Court’s order restraining Cipla from marketing its drug too has been set aside.

I thank a good friend and well-wisher of the blog for sharing this information with me!

Readers may recall that in an earlier post, I had blogged on dismissal of Cipla’s appeal against the Single Judge’s order restraining Cipla from marketing its drug, without staying the revocation of the Sunitinib patent.

Let’s wait for the order of the Supreme Court to understand the reasons for setting aside the Sunitinib revocation, and for allowing Cipla to sell its drug.

Breaking News: Chennai Patent Office Rejects Yet Another Novartis Application

In a 5-page order dated November 20, 2012, the Chennai Patent Office has refused to grant a patent to Novartis in its application 2208/CHENP/2006 on "A PHARMACEUTICAL COMBINATION FOR BRAIN DEGENERATIVE  DISEASES”.

The amended Claim 1 read as follows:

l.  A pharmaceutical  combination  comprising

a) a first agent which is 2-amno-2-12-(4-octylphenyl)ethyl[propane-1,3-diol in free form or in a phannaceutically acceptable  salt form, or FTY72O-phosphate, or 2-amino-2-f2,-(4-octylphenyl)ethyl]propane-l,3-diol hydrochloride, and

b) a second agent useful in the alleviation or teatment of brain degenerative diseases or progressive dementia,  selected from an AIvIPA receptor agonist, a noobopic agent such asi cinnarizine, nimodipine, donepezil  hydrochloride, rivastigmine.  galantamine hydrobromide, dihydroergotoxin, nicergoline, piracetame, extacts from Ginkgo leafs, pentiffllh,  pyritinol,  vincamine or vinpocetine,  and a Painkiller.

The application appears to have been rejected on grounds that the amended claim (pursuant to objections in the FER) did not have adequate support in the specification, and lacked clarity.  Further, the invention claimed in the application was deemed as being obvious in light of the prior art, and deficient in exhibiting synergistic effect of the combination of ingredients used.

Again, the absence of a detailed discussion on the prior art cited by the Patent office makes it difficult to critique/appreciate the order.

Breaking News: Canadian Supreme Court Invalidates Pfizer's Viagra patent

This is truly a bad year for patentees all over the world. In an extremely critical development, the Supreme Court of Canada has invalidated Pfizer's patent on Viagra on grounds of insufficient disclosure (reported here). The decision was a unanimous one (7-0). One is yet to read the contents of the decision, but this is a truly monumental development which is bound to keep us all engaged for sometime to come.

Correction: Patent Agent Exam Rules Amended

Correction: I hadn't read Sub-Rule (2), but an alert well-wisher of the blog has just pointed out my blunder. The amended post reads as follows:

In a gazette notification dated September 25, 2012, the Government of India has notified the amendment to the Patent Rules which apply to Patent Agent Examination. The Sub-rule (2) of Rule 110 has been amended to bring down the marks in viva from 100 to 50, thereby bringing down the total score to 250, as opposed to the earlier figure of 300.

The amended sub-rule (3) of Rule 110 reads as follows:

(3) A candidate shall be required to secure a minimum of fifty marks in Paper I and Paper II and shall be declared to have passed the examination only, if he obtains an aggregate of sixty percent of the total marks.

By the amendment, the effect of viva voce has been reduced.

I thank Ms.Disha Jeswani, the topper of the 2010 Patent Agent Examination, for sharing this information with me!

Snippet: Complaint filed against Yash Raj Films in the Competition Commission

Reportedly, actor-cum-producer Ajay Devgn, has filed a complaint against Yash Raj Films in the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for abusing its dominant position in Bollywood to prevent the release of Ajay’s film Son of Sardar on the eve of Diwali.

I’ll keep the readers updated on this development. I thank Ms.Sneha Jain for bringing this news report to my attention.

Snippet: Delhi High Court Passes “John Doe” Order for the Movie “Chakravyuh”

On October 19, 2012, in a suit instituted by Eros International, C.S.(O.S.) 3163/2012, the Delhi High Court issued “John Doe” order against unknown defendants in relation to the film “Chakravyuh”, besides restraining named defendants such as Jyoti Cable Network from communicating, making available, distributing, duplicating, displaying, releasing, showing, exhibiting in the film in any manner without obtaining prior authorization/license from Eros International.

I thank Ms.Sneha Jain for bringing this development to my attention.

Snippet: Cipla Abandons its Patent Application

In an interesting development, Cipla has abandoned its patent application 733/MUMNP/2004 relating to “A combination of Azelastine and steroids” which had 50 claims.  The application was abandoned after a pre-grant opposition was filed against it. Here is the 8-page decision delivered on October 14, 2012 by the Mumbai Patent Office, of which 6 pages contain only the claims of the application.

Breaking News: IPAB Dismisses Bayer’s Prayer for Stay on CL Order

The Economic Times has reported that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has dismissed Bayer’s prayer for stay on the Compulsory Licensing Order Issued this March by the Controller General of Patents to NATCO on Bayer’s patented drug Nexavar.

According to The Hindu, the following were the IPAB’s observations:

“If [a] stay is granted, it will jeopardise the interests of the public who are in need of the drug. The appellant has not made out any case…”

“The appellant cannot ride piggy-back on, or take shelter under, the sale by Cipla. It is the duty of patentee that its own supply be made available at [a] reasonable price to the requirement of the public.”

Further, the Board seems to have dismissed Bayer’s allegations that NATCO was exporting Nexavar to Pakistan and China. I will post more on this once I get to see the copy of the order. The hearing in Bayer’s appeal was concluded on September 6, 2012. To the best of my knowledge, the decision on the merits of the appeal has not been pronounced yet.

I thank a friend and well-wisher of the blog for bringing this development to my attention.

Latest: Supreme Court on Reportage of Sub-judice Matters

From the latest reports available, it appears the Supreme Court has pronounced its verdict on the issue of framing of guidelines for reportage of sub-judice matters (Readers may note that I had written on this issue just a few days ago). The decision was delivered in a petition in which Sahara alleged that certain documents relating to a pending legal proceeding between Sahara and SEBI was leaked to the media.

In February 2012, the Supreme Court had hauled up SEBI for leaking to the media details of Sahara’s proposal enumerating collaterals to secure investors’ interest. In February, the following was reportedly the Court’s observation:

"We are distressed to note that even 'without prejudice' proposals sent by counsel for the appellants (Sahara) to the counsel for SEBI, has come on one of the TV channels. Such incidents are increasing by the day. Such reporting not only affect the business sentiments but also interfere in the administration of justice," a bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said.

Today, in its judgment, the SC has observed that norms and guidelines regarding reportage of sub-judice matters cannot be made across the board. Further, it held that there can be no guidelines for matters that are sub-judice.

Further, the Court said that restrictions relating to sub-judice matters must be made on a case-to-case basis. The Court apparently has cautioned journalists that they should know the “Lakshman rekha” so that they don't cross the line of contempt. 

According to the Court, freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right under the Indian Constitution and that the doctrine of postponement of reporting has been evolved as a preventive measure, and not as a prohibitive and punitive measure. Critically, the Court observed that the restriction on publication of court proceedings is with a view to protect public interest.  

I will discuss this judgment as and when I have a copy of it.

Breaking News: Roche v. Cipla Judgment Pronounced

Based on information received today, it appears that the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has pronounced his verdict in the Roche v. Cipla trial. The findings reportedly are: (1) Roche's patent on Erlotinib, IN196774 is valid, and (2) Cipla has not infringed Roche's patent.

Snippet: Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Sony Trade Links (India) Listed for Arguments on September 7th

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha's suit for infringement of its trademark, which was filed in 1994 before the High Court of Calcutta against Sony Trade Links, is listed for final arguments on September 7, 2012, according to an order passed on August 31, 2012.

Snippet: Tokyo Court Dismisses Apple's Patent Claims against Samsung

Last week, I blogged on the decision of the Northern District Court of California awarding USD 1.05 Billion in damages to Apple against Samsung. Today, the Times of India has reported that the Tokyo District Court has dismissed Apple's claims of patent infringement by Samsung. I will share more details of the decision as and when I have them.

Snippet: Supreme Court to hear Novartis Case Tomorrow

With all the hype surrounding the Novartis’s Glivec case which is slated for hearing tomorrow before the Supreme Court, it is virtually impossible to not give the case the attention due to it. Most of us are aware of the facts of the case and the primary arguments of the parties concerned. However, it remains to be seen if merits of the case and genuine legal arguments rightly engage the attention of the Hon’ble Apex Court, or will popular pressure mould the course of the case.

We humbly request our readers to share with us any updates they may receive on the case.

DST -Lockheed Martin India Innovation Growth Program

I stumbled on to what seems like an amazing opportunity for budding Indian innovators who wish to showcase their innovation and implement it in real time- the DST-Lockheed Martin Indian innovation Growth Program, which as the name suggests has the Department of Science of Technology, Govt. of India as one of its key partners, besides FICCI and University of Texas IC².

According to the official website, the objective of the Program is to accelerate the launch of early-stage Indian technologies into the global market place. The list of areas of innovation which are covered under the Program is available here.

The top applicants to the Program who will be selected through a competitive process will receive the following benefits: 

1.  Attendance at an Entrepreneurial Workshop focused on technology commercialization.
2. A detailed Quick Look© technology commercialization strategy and recommendations report prepared by the IC² Institute. Participation in an Indian Technology Expo. 
3. Automatic enrolment in the DST - Lockheed Martin Innovator Competition, judged by an international panel of technology and business experts. Awards will be granted for the top prospects for commercialization in the coming year.

Also, according to the website- “The Gold Medal winners from the DST - Lockheed Martin Innovator Competition will be invited to work with commercialization experts from FICCI and IC² Institute to pursue appropriate business engagements in the U.S., India and other global markets.”

The compendium of technologies selected between 2007 and 2011 is available here. The list of top 30 winners for 2012 is available here.