+91-80-26860414

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellepedia – IP News Center

Synthetic cell: Patent or No Patent?

First Publication Date: 27th May 2010 After reading today’s article titled “Patent-run for synthetic life form could be ‘damaging’, says Brit scientist” I thought I was having a Déjà vu. Looks like, once again, history repeats itself. Have you ever wondered as to why every time there is a substantial progress in the field of Synthetic biology, we get mixed reactions. We are happy about the progress but when it comes to rewarding a patent to the inventors for the progress, we are reluctant. The saga began when Dr. Chakrabarty applied for a patent for his genetically modified Pseudomonas. It instigated the...

Continue reading

Weekly Trademark News: Aaj Tak Wins Trademark Battle, Trademark Infringement over a Candle, Discover Brand in India and other news

Indian Trademark Statistics for November (Fourth Week) 2018, Discovery Brand Now in India, LG Electronics Files Trademarks for Foldable Phones, Aaj Tak Wins a Trademark Battle, Surname Trademark Infringement, and more, brought to you by the Trademark Attorneys at BananaIP (BIP) Counsels. TRADEMARK QUOTE OF THE WEEK “Every advertisement should be thought of as a contribution to the complex symbol whichis the brand image”– Walter Landor INDIAN TRADEMARK STATISTICS The Indian Trademark Office have had a mixed week with respect to its work pace last week. The total number of the applications disposed through show cause hearings has increased by twelve percent (12%)....

Continue reading

Write, Keep Writing, The World will …- Copyrights and Writers (Part 2)

If I Could Copyright… My Book: Copyrights and Writers (Part 5)

Copyright protects original, creative expressions on a tangible form. All three requirements, originality, creativity, and expression on a tangible form have low thresholds, and are easily satisfied by almost, all writings. As long as the writer's work is independently created, not copied; it has  minimal creativity, a pinch at least; and the writing is on a tangible form such as paper, electronic medium, etc., copyright protection automatically begins. Expression is what matters for copyright protection, and impression is irrelevant. Ideas and Expressions Copyright protects expressions, and not ideas. An idea in the writer's mind has no value under the copyright law. It...

Continue reading

Patent: Natural or Man Made

This post was first published on April 4, 2010.   This is in furtherance of Mrs. Vinita Radhakrishnan's post regarding the US District Court decision on BRCA gene patents. Under the US Patent Law, anything that exists in nature is not patentable subject matter. This is also referred to as 'Product of Nature Doctrine'. The test for determining whether something exists in nature or not as laid down in Chakrabarty's case is whether a hand of man is involved in creating the invention. If there is a hand of man, the invention is said to be not naturally existing and therefore, patentable subject...

Continue reading

Role of IP Policy in a Knowledge-driven Company

This post was first published on March 26, 2010. An Intellectual Property (IP) Policy setting out the IP goals of a company in the light of its business goals plays a very important role in enabling the company acquire competitive advantage from its IP. The IP Policy must lay down the frame work in the light of the company's IP strategy. Most IP policies cover aspects such as generation, protection, ownership, utilization, management and commercialization of IP. They also include the company's policy with respect to use of third party IP, interaction with third parties and so on. While the broad...

Continue reading

The Gene returns to its body

This post was first published on April 1, 2010.   I’m still in denial of the summary judgment ruling provided by Judge Robert W. Sweet of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO on March 29th 2010. Looks like all that I read, understood and got convinced about regarding gene patents demands a revisit. The 156 pages summary judgment that was issued on this Monday has for sure taken me by surprise. (I promise to provide the details of the opinion a bit later. I guess this is my time to...

Continue reading

SWISS CLAIMS ARE HISTORY!

This post was first published on February 24, 2010. If the 19th February decision (G02/08) from the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) at the EPO is to be simplistically interpreted, “Swiss” Type claims are indeed history. As most of our readers must be aware of the nature of a “Swiss” type of claim language. A “Swiss” type claim is essentially used to cover the so called Second, Third and Subsequent uses/medical indications of a known substance or composition. Taking our readers a bit more than a decade back the EBA in its decision (G05/83) had allowed the use of Swiss type claims. The...

Continue reading

Something more about Swiss type Claims

This post was first published on February 25, 2010. On reading Siddharth’s post on the 19th February decision (G02/08) from the Enlarged Board of Appeal regarding the Swiss type claims, I got motivated to write something about the Swiss type claims and the reason for its birth and death. Like in India, Method of Treatment and Method of diagnosis (in vivo) has always been non patentable subject matter in Europe (Article 52(4)). Furthermore, before the concept of Absolute Novelty was introduced by the European Patent Office, a Second medical use of a drug could not get any kind of protection due to...

Continue reading

Claiming with a purpose, with the blessings of the inventor

This post was first published on March 1, 2010.   Claims draw the boundary to the invention that is being claimed. The boundary that is being drawn must be carefully done in order to ensure that the claims serve their purpose. The point here is that every claim must have a specific purpose and must be targeted to a potential infringing product or process, or be targeted to protect a specific implementation (in case of defensive approach). In order for the practitioner to be able to do that, he must have a clear understanding of how a product or process is implemented...

Continue reading

Copyright: Public Domain in Copyright Regime: Facilitating Right to Know

This post was first published on March 16, 2010. Contributed by Professor Madabhushi Sridhar The interface between the right to know and limited monopoly over creative expressions to the authentic owner represent conflicts of interests. Proprietorial concerns on one hand and the social interests on the other need to be reconciled in almost every area where individual rights conflict with social concerns. If the copyright is considered as an extension of the right of speech and expression, it contradicts another fundamental right, i.e., right to know which was read into right to life under article 21. Recently the right to education, in...

Continue reading