― Friday, 12th June 2020 Availing Patent Benefits – A ‘Status’ Check!
Every patent office provides certain benefits to Patent Applicants if they meet certain criteria (with respect to entity size, gross income and others). These benefits may be patent fee discounts or speedy examination processes.
This article touches upon the benefits extended by IPO, USPTO and EPO to entities based on their status.
― Wednesday, 27th May 2020 Not an Equal world for AI - No Inventorship for them!
With Artificial intelligence (AI) replacing humans in myriad sectors and operational aspects, it is not surprising that AI is able to concoct its own inventions. AI-generated inventions are (and may become) the norm, however, awarding inventorship to AI under the current patent system is far-fetched. So, is it justifiable denying patent rights to the actual inventor for inventions created by AI or does the patent system merely operate on the fact that AI is a machinewith no capability to exercise legal rights even if given any, and therefore unfit to hold inventorship for its creations.
― Wednesday, 27th May 2020 First Filing in India: A Requirement or a Choice?
Indian resident inventors may decide to file patent applications in multiple countries including India or entirely disregard India and go international! This may be due to weak market strength/poor demand for the product/invention in the country.
As per Indian Patents Act, it is mandatory to obtain an Foreign Filing License (FFL) if an Indian resident inventor decides to first file in a foreign country bypassing Indian Patent Office(IPO) . As per the rules, within 21 days of requesting for an FFL, the IPO, usually, either issues the FFL certificate or rejects the FFL request.
Another option is to first file in India and then wait for a cooling-off period (six weeks!) before attempting to file in a foreign country. In this case, an FFL is not required.
― Friday, 22nd May 2020 The Missing Link - IT Act and IPR Laws
Cyber laws are defined under the Information Technology (IT) Act of 2000 encompassing legal and regulatory aspects of the internet and the world wide web. However, certain entities/intermediaries such as e-commerce websites, search engines, and data aggregators sometimes come under scrutiny for violation of IPR laws when seen under the light of IT Act. Hence, protection to intermediaries from liability, arising out of content posted by users, needs be addressed by creating nexus between IT Act and IPR laws.
― Wednesday, 20th May 2020 Keeping an Eye on India - USA’s IP Priority Watch List
India has been grappling with big IP giants such as the US to establish its stance on the IP front. Owing to a fallible IP regime, India has yet again come under the US’s Priority Watch List and is required to meet certain expectations of the US in terms of trade and other IPR related policies. However, the question still remains whether India, being a sovereign nation, should let itself be subdued by the US or have its own say in IP matters concerning the nation.
― Friday, 23rd October 2020 Only Human: Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Applies to Intentionally Expired Patent
Affirming an invalidity finding by the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the claims of the now-expired patent should be construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, and not under the Phillips standard, because the patent owner intentionally gave up the remainder of the patent term only after the appeal was fully briefed. Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Case Nos. 19-1749, -1777 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2020) (Prost, C.J.).
― Friday, 23rd October 2020 Inventor Uses Abstention to Avoid Getting “Screwed”
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment complaint related to patent validity under the federal abstention doctrine because the issue had been decided in state court. Warsaw Orthopedic, Medtronic Inc., et al. v. Rick C. Sasso, M.D., Case No. 19-1583 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2020) (Newman, J.).
― Friday, 23rd October 2020 Third Circuit rules FTC cannot obtain disgorgement under FTC Act Section 13(b)
Last week, in FTC v. AbbVie Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which expressly gives the FTC authority to obtain injunctive relief, does not allow a district court to order disgorgement. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Section 13(b) allows a district court to order restitution.
― Thursday, 22nd October 2020 Only ‘Disclosed’ if ‘Identified’: IPAB Quashes Ceritinib Patent Revocation
An IPAB bench consisting of Chairman Manmohan Singh J. and the new technical member for Patents Dr. B.P. Singh has quashed the Controller of Patent’s decision that revoked Novartis’s patent on the anti-cancer drug Ceritinib. It held that while the compound was contained in a broader genus patent, it was not ‘disclosed’ therein, as it hadn’t been specifically identified. The 104-page order examines several issues regarding novelty and obviousness, the extent of coverage and disclosure, and timelines for filing of evidence.
― Thursday, 22nd October 2020 China Enters the Realm of Anti-Suit Inju
Courts in China have recently issued anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) in two high-profile cases involving standard essential patents (SEPs) on 3G and 4G technology (Xiaomi v. InterDigital (2020) E 01 Zhi Min Chu 169 No 1; Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong (2019) No.732, 733, 734 (Huawei v. Conversant)). The former case has been followed by a controversial ‘anti-anti-suit’