patents and case study

Patents and Related Case Studies

Presented by :

Mohit Kohli 212

Mohit Rana 213

Zikra Akhtar 240

Sukriti Singh 242

Patent

set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or

assignee

for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an

invention.

Patent law

Patent law is law governing the granting of a temporary monopoly

on the use of an invention, in exchange for the publication and free

use of the invention after a certain time.

There is some evidence that some form of patent rights was recognized in

Ancient Greece.

encouragement was held out to all who should discover any new refinement

in luxury, the profits arising from which were secured to the inventor by

patent for the space of a year

In England, a grant of 1331 to John Kempe and his Company is the earliest

authenticated instance of a royal grant made

Patent History

What is protected by patent?

PATENT PROTECTION. A patent is a right, granted by the state to an

inventor, to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing an

invention throughout the state without the inventor's consent. The inventor

may license or sell the rights defined by the claims of the patent.

Rio de Janeiro 1992

India is a part of UN convention signed at Rio 5th June of 1992.

This Convention reaffirms the sovereign rights of the States over their

biological resources.

After this convention comes India’s national biodiversity act.

National biodiversity act

• An Act to provide for conservation of biological diversity,

• Sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of

the benefits arising out of the use of biological resources,

knowledge and for matters connected therewith or incidental

thereto.

• For this a national biodiversity authority has been setup.

The National Biodiversity Authority

1. Chairperson, who shall be an eminent person having adequate

knowledge and experience in the conservation and sustainable use of

biological diversity and in matters relating to equitable sharing of

benefits, to be appointed by the Central Government.

2. Three ex officio members to be appointed by the Central Government, one representing the

Ministry dealing with Tribal Affairs and two representing the Ministry dealing with Environment

and Forests of whom one shall be the DG or ADG of Forests.

3. Seven ex officio members to be appointed by the Central Government to represent respectively the

Ministries of the Central Government dealing with –

(i) Agricultural Research and Education;

(ii) Biotechnology;

(iii) Ocean Development;

(iv) Agriculture and Cooperation;

(v) Indian Systems of Medicine and Homoeopathy;

(vi) Science and Technology;

(vii) Scientific and Industrial Research;

4. Five non-official members to be appointed from amongst specialists and

scientists having special knowledge of, or experience in, matters relating to

conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of biological

resources and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of

biological resources, representatives of industry, conservers, creators andknow ledge-holders of biological resources.

- Sec. 3 of BDA

• A non-Indian citizen needs a previous approval from the National

Biodoversity Authority (NBA) for obtaining any biological

resources occuring India

I. The Biological Diversity Act of 2002 (BDA) 3

- Sec. 4 of BDA

• No person shall transfer the result of any research relating to

any biological resources occuring in or obtained from India to

a person who is not a citizen of India


- Sec. 6 of BDA

• A patent application for any invention based on any research

or information on a biological resource obtained from India

needs a prior approval of NBA before filing

• If a patent has been filed, a permission of NBA may be obtained

after acceptance of the patent


- Sec. 7 of BDA

• An Indian citizen who is not of a local people and communities

of the area needs prior intimation to State Biodiversity Board

for obtaining any biological resource for commercial utilization


Case of nanocurcumin

• The source of Curcumin used in the preparation of Nanocurcumin is a

biological resource obtained from India.

• No approval for obtaining a biological resource has been taken from

NBA on behalf of Amit Bose, one of the two co-applicants of the

pending patent application

Investigation into facts

• Whether Amit Bose got (and used) turmeric samples to produce

nanoparticles of curcumin?

→ If not, no violation of Sec. 3 of BDA

→ If yes, further investigation is required to determine whether

a prior intimation to State Biodiversity Board has been taken for

obtaining a turmeric sample or not

It seems that Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 of BDA violated

* In relation to Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 Alok Bose and Amit bose is subject to imprisonment

up to five years or criminal fine up to ten lakh rupees.

AMIT BOSE FILED THE PATENT AND ALOK BOSE OPPOSED IT, AS HE WAS

ALSO THE PART OF THE PATENT APPLICATION, BUT NOT INTRODUCED

BY THE FORMER APPLICANT I.E AMIT BOSE.

IN THIS CASE ALOK BOSE AND AMIT BOSE BOTH HAS VOILATED THE

RULES OF NBA.

Settlement of the Dispute

It is suggested that the parties, Amit Bose, Alok Bose, SPOT,

NBA, the Patent Controller and State Biodiversity Board of

Kerala agree to settle the case on the following terms:

1. Amit Bose agrees to transfer his share of the title to the patent application

to Alok Bose.

and destroy all records containing any technical information obtained during

preparation of patent application on nanocurcumin???

So he(Amit Bose) cannot make further claims into the patent application as

the new research has to be carried out by both of them.

2. Upon NBA’s approval and permission, Alok Bose agrees to deposit in

the National Biodiversity Fund as provided in Sec. 21 (3) of BDA a

20 % of any income from the subject patent application including any

patents granted on the subject patent application as the profit sharing

provided in Sec. 21 of BDA

THEY HAVE TO SHARE THEIR PROFIT MADE FROM THE PATENT

APPLICATION AS SUGGESTED BY THE RULES OF NBA

3. Upon Alok Bose’s application, NBA agrees, by a majority of votes of

the members, to grant a permission for a filing of a patent application

on the nanocurcumin invention

4. All the parties agree not to file a civil or criminal complaints or

under the BDA prosecute a case raised under the BDA

Diamond v. Ananda Chakrabarty

• crucial judgment, regarding biotechnological patents, was made by the

US Supreme court in this case.

• In 1972, Ananda Chakrabarty filed a patent application for inventing a

GEM – Pseudomonas putida,

• which was capable of degrading crude oil and hence, combat oil spills.

• However, his patent application was rejected because the bacterium was

a ‘living thing’ and so, it did not qualify as a patentable subject-matter.

• Chakrabarty appealed his case.

• Reached the US Supreme Court in 1980.

• The final decision stated genetic engineering as-‘manufacturing’ and

affirmed that the bacterium was Chakrabarty’s invention. He won the

patent and his bacterium became the first GEM to be patented!

• verdict proved catalyst for the Biotechnology Industry in US.

• many patents have been granted for GEMs since then.

Dimminaco AG v. Controller of Patents and Designs

• In 2002, the Calcutta High Court made a historic judgment

• Dimminaco A.G., a Swiss company,

• developed a live (attenuated) vaccine against Bursitis,

• an infectious poultry disease,

• and applied for patenting the process of its preparation.

• The Controller of Patents and Designs rejected the application

• on the bases of- end product containing a living material

• and its procedure of development being only a natural process.

• THE CASE GOES TO HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA.

• the Calcutta High Court accept the process of manufacturing as patentable,

• even if the end-product contained a living organism.

• This milestone decision paved way for the patentability of numerous such inventions

containing living microorganisms.

• In Indian context, this ruling has helped flourish the Biotechnology Industry.

Thank YouFor your patience

patents and case study

Law