Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellectual Property

BananaIP Counsels > Intellectual Property (Page 10)

Revised Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Pharma Industry

This image depicts Tablets and Capsules of various colors. This image is relevant as the topic is about Final Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceuticals Published. Click on the image for more information

This post was first published on 22nd August, 2014.   The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) published the revised draft guidelines for the examination of patent applications in the field of Pharmaceuticals on August 12, 2014. The main intention of said guidelines was to bring in a uniform practice for the examination of patent applications relating to the Pharmaceutical field. Earlier in the month of February, the CGPDTM had published the draft guidelines with regard to this and had requested for comments and suggestions. The Indian Patent Office had also published the comments received which contained the views of various...

Continue reading

What NOT to DO While Applying for a Trademark

The image depicts the REGISTERED logo

  This post was first published on 22nd June, 2012.   1.    Have a business? Applying for a trademark is a sheer waste of time. You must already be busy with routine chores of the business. Thinking of adopting a mark and going through the entire process of getting it registered is just tiresome and unnecessary. Business will boom if it has to. 2.    If you are thinking of a name for your mark, trying to adopt a descriptive name as your trademark will be a good idea, i.e if you are selling oranges then the trademark you should adopt is ORANGE. 3.    Have you...

Continue reading

Smoking Without Smoke

This post was first published on 9th April, 2011. Smoking has become one of the biggest problems haunting youngsters today. Many of us know the famous scene from a Tamil movie starring Rajinikanth where Rajinikanth takes on the challenge of flipping his cigarette into the air and catching it with his mouth and repeats this ten times. Though, this kind of scenes get applauded by the audience in the theatre but when it comes to real life, smoking is considered to be one of the biggest curse of mankind. Smoking is considered to be more dangerous than drugs as it affects not...

Continue reading

Trademark Litigation: ‘Advantage’ of Settlement

The image depicts Cipla's range of veterinary products marked 'Advantage'. Another company has a similar mark 'Advantix' for the similar products. This post talks about how the trademark issue was settled. Click on the image to read the full post.

This post was originally published on 18th December, 2011. Bayer and Cipla have recently settled trade mark litigation with respect to Advantage and Advantix trade marks.  These trade marks were registered by Bayer at the USPTO and are being used for veterinary products. Cipla has been marketing one of its pet products under the trade mark, DA Double Advantage with the aid of an online supplier called Archipelago. Aggrieved by Cipla's actions, Bayer filed a suit in a US court asking for a  preliminary injunction against use of the trade mark. The parties have now  settled the dispute out of court. As...

Continue reading

The Non-Obviousness Requirement and its Evolution – Graham vs. John Deere

This post was first published on 16th July, 2014.

Today’s special is the case that has set a high precedent in US Patent Law practice, acquiring the status of the highest cited case in subsequent cases decided by several courts, especially the CAFC. Graham vs. John Deere Co. is cited extensively since it clarifies the judicial standing on the requirement of non-obviousness of an invention. William T Graham (Graham) sued John Deere Co. (Deere) for patent infringement.

Details: Graham invented a new shock absorber to add to tractors, essentially a device designed to absorb shock from the shanks of chisel plows as they plowed through rocky soil and thus prevented damage to the plow. Graham obtained a patent (US Patent 2,493,811) on this device.

Shortly thereafter, Graham made an improvement on this device and applied and obtained a patent (US Patent 2,627,798) for the improvement. Only 2 differences existed between the two patents, them being: the stirrup and the bolted connection of the shank to the hinge plate did not appear in 2,493,811 and the position of the shank was reversed, being placed in 2,493,811 above the hinge plate, sandwiched between it and the upper plate.

Common Reasons for Delay in Grant of Patent

This post was first posted on 20th July, 2o14.   A Patent gives its owner a monopolistic right and protection against unauthorized use of anything under its protection. This is the reason that a patent only gets granted once it passes several levels of stringent scrutiny. This phase is called the examination of the patent application. Examination of the application determines whether the patent application is worthy of a patent grant and thus, unless the application fulfills all patentabilty criteria, it does not receive a grant. For a patent application to be examined, a specific request has to be filed within a stipulated deadline, in accordance with the laws...

Continue reading

Patents May be Relatively New to Indians, but Inventions are Not

The image depicts a sack containing cotton seeds.

This post was first published on 10th March, 2014.   It gives the SiNApSE blog Team great pleasure to bring forth to our readers a 1971 US patent in which Mr. C. T. Dwarakanath from CFTRI, Mysore, was an inventor. Mr. Dwarakanath was a co-inventor in the patent entitled, "Process for reduction of aflatoxin content of oilseed meals by ozonization", bearing number 3,592,641. The invention was conceived and reduced to practice during one of his visits to Louisiana, USA on a project for the agricultural department during the years 1965-66. The patent was in fact assigned to the US Government, Department of...

Continue reading

Were the brothers (W)right?

The image depicts the Wright Brothers walking together.

This post was first published on 20th March, 2014.   Last week, my post was about the role of communication technology in making different regions of the world “excess able” from “access able”. It is important to bear in mind the role played by transportation systems in nullifying the effects of physical distance. Though different transportation means such as roadways, airways and waterways are available, when it comes to covering long distances in short time periods, aviation a.k.a. air transportation is one of the most convenient modes of transportation. The Wright brothers began efforts to invent a motor powered aircraft in the year 1899....

Continue reading

Threatened Co-existence of Breeders Rights and Patent Rights

This image depicts two people trying to join a puzzle. This image is relevant as their is a threat to the co-existence of the Breeder's rights and patent rights. Click on this image for more information

This post was last published on September 1st, 2014.

 

Innovation has always been focused on existing plant varieties which scientists use for improvements and for which breeders’ exemption (the right to use protected plant varieties in their research and claim ownership of the results) is granted. But patents don’t provide for a breeders’ exemption and researchers will have to pay for access to patented materials used in their research if they are allowed access at all. Patent stacking has become common practice – it refers to taking out patents for different aspects of a single innovation, forcing several royalty applications and payments.

From the very beginning Plant Variety Protection Law has contained a special provision that the breeder’s rights shall not extend to acts done for the purpose of breeding, or discovering and developing other plant varieties. It already appeared in Art. 5(3) of the 1961 UPOV Convention and can still be found in Art. 15(1)(iii) of the 1991 UPOV Convention and in Art. 15(c) of Regulation 2100/94 on Community Plant Variety Rights [1994] OJ L227/1. It speaks for itself that this rule has also been laid down in many national Plant Variety Protection regulations ever since.

Myriad Genetics Case : Genetic Patentability

This post was first published on 19th August, 2013.   Finally, I have managed to read the Myriad Genetics case at peace. Off late, setting out to analyze the US Supreme Court's patent decisions has become a much easier task than earlier. Firstly, the Court has gotten clearer in the recent past, and secondly, it is no longer a one sided patent friendly Court. The decisions of the Court in KSR, Bilski, Mayo, and finally this case indicate that trend. In the backdrop, the decision in Myriad Genetics was not a surprise to a keen follower, and, upholds the inherent lacuna in...

Continue reading
css.php
Speak with an IP Expert Today
close slider