intellactual property rights with cases

CASE STUDY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

GROUP 9 MEMBERS--

RAJNI VASHISHT

SWATI SHARMA

SHAHBAAZ AHMED

SALONI RAMAN MISHRA

SHRAVAN K JHA

SUNDRAM SINHA

PATENT CASE ON-

Novartis vs. Union of India & Others

challenging the Indian Patent Office for:Denial of its patent application for GlivecConstitutional validity of section 3(d) of Indian Patent Law,1970

INTRODUCTION-

Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act–

Prevents the Grant of a Patent for New Forms of Known Substances, Unless It is Demonstrated with an Increased Efficacy.

Glivec Patented in 35 countries & Helpful in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

CONTINUED-

“Imatinib Mesylate” in Beta Crystalline Form.

Restrain Indian Generic Pharmaceutical Manufacturers from Producing Drugs based on the Compound.

Not Compatible with the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Vague). 

Non Uniform Discretionary Power on the patent controller.

CONTINUED……

Abuses of Power by Statutory Authority Corrected by the Hierarchy of Forums provided in the Act itself.

General Expressions for Court to Understand its meaning, would not be a ground to Declare a Section or an Act.

DECISION-

Dismissal of 2 Petitions by Madras High Court.

Division Bench of Court Rejected the Contention as it gave Scope to the Statutory Authority to Exercise its Power Arbitrarily.

Substance was Used in the Market for Many Years .

CONTINUED- Glivec does not Qualify the Test of

“Invention” as laid down in Section 2(1)(j) and Section 2(1)(j (a)) of the Indian Patent Act.

Novartis decided to stop any further Investment in R&D in India.

PATENT CASE ON PROCESS-INTRODUCTION-

Class of Patents which Disclose and Claim New Methods of Doing Business.

Includes New Types of E-Commerce, Insurance, Banking, Tax Compliance etc.

As Per Section 3(k), Business Methods are not patentable until a new method solves a "technical" problem and an apparatus/system is involved.

PATENT CASE ON-

Yahoo vs Controller of Patents.

Patent an Invention Titled “A Method of Operating a Computer Network Search Apparatus”.

DECISION- The court Invalidated Yahoo’s Claim.

Claimed ‘Invention’ is Doing the Advertisement Business Electronically.

Technical Advance Claimed Over Existing Art is an Improvement in the Method of Doing Business.

CONTINUED-

By Section.3(k) Business Method cannot be Patented.

Technical Advance has not improved the case.

The Decision Made it Clear that Business Methods cannot be Granted Patent Protection in India.

CASE ON TRADEMARK LAWS –INTRODUCTION

Deals with the Mechanism of Registration, Protection of Trademark and Prevention of Fraudulent Trademark, Nature of Infringements and Penalties.

Section 2 (z(b)) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,

TRADEMARK CASE ON-AMUL VS LOCAL SHOPKEEPERS

Amul Dairy and the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) Filed Trademark Infringement Cases Against Two Local Shop Owners, Amul Chashmaghar and Amul Cut Piece Stores in the District court.

Kaira Union owns brand Amul, GCMMF manages the brand.

PROCEEDINGS- April 25, 2007, Order Passed by Court

that it is a case of Infringement and Restrained the two from using Amul trademark.

Amul Chashmaghar Challenged the Court’s Interim Injunction in the High Court where Justice D N Patel Upheld Ruling of the District Court.

DECISION- Amul Chasmaghar's appeal was

Rejected. Order Passed by the Court was True, as well

as in Accordance with the Trademarks Act 1999.

Amul’s name can not be used by an other proprietor even if the company is selling goods other than that sold by the proprietor, who has registered the trademark.

COPYRIGHT CASE ON-Microsoft Files Copyright

Infringement Case Against KK Software-

Kamlesh Kumar Jha, the owner of New Delhi-based KK Software Solutions, and other Defendants were Indulge in Software Piracy and Counterfeiting Microsoft products.

PROCEEDINGS-

Loss of Rs 5.71 crore by Microsoft, due to Illegal Softwares Seized by CBI during the Raids in 2009.

Includes Bulk of Microsoft softwares and Unauthorized Packaging and Printing Material, Blank Certificate of Authenticity (COA) stickers, and other Infringing evidences.

DECISION-

January 7, 2013, the Delhi High Court issued an Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction Restraining the Defendants from Undertaking any Further Reproduction, Storage, Installation or Usage of Unlicensed Softwares of Microsoft.

Court Ordered them to Disclose the Details of their assets on Affidavit.

CONTINUED-

Charge Sheet Filed Against KK Jha and others Citing Violations of the Copyright Act 1957, the Information Technology Act 2000 and the Indian Penal Code 1860.

The Case is currently awaiting Framing of charges by the court, according to Microsoft.

THANK YOU…..