Trueffelpix / Shutterstock.com
India has been accused of showing an attitude of protectionism in its IP policies, but a number of decisions demonstrate attempts by the Indian judiciary to uphold the IP rights of innovators. Hemant Singh of Inttl Advocare reports.
Recent decisions in intellectual property cases delivered by the Indian judiciary have made significant progress in interpreting some of the key statutory provisions of IP legislation, having far-reaching implications for the nature and extent of IP protection and enforcement in India. A few prominent decisions in this area and the trends being set are worth noting.
A person aggrieved by the grant of a patent has several options to challenge the validity of the granted patent under the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970. These are (i) to challenge the grant through a post-grant opposition within one year from the publication of the grant; (ii) to apply for revocation before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB); and (iii) to seek revocation via a counter-claim in an infringement suit. There have been instances where a litigant has exercised more than one option by making multiple challenges to the grant of a patent before different authorities.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on email@example.com.
Hemant Singh, Inttl Advocare, IPAB, IP, patent, Roche v Cipla, Novartis, SPM, Merck, IPO,