― 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.
― Thursday, 23rd September 2021 Software Co. To Wind Down After $62M Trade Secret Verdict
Software developer Expedien filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy late Monday in Texas, opting to wind down its business in the wake of a $62 million judgment against it and another company for conspiring to steal the trade secrets of apartment rental software company ResMan LLC.
― Thursday, 23rd September 2021 Lupin Will Pay $150M To End Glumetza Antitrust Suit
Lupin will pay $150 million to resolve antitrust litigation over its alleged role in a scheme to delay generic versions of the blockbuster diabetes treatment Glumetza, 10 days after Bausch Health settled for $300 million, according to a federal court filing in San Francisco.
― Wednesday, 22nd September 2021 Where Have All of the Ex Parte Appeals Gone?
Once a rejection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is designated as at least one “final” office action (which typically occurs when the office action is at least a second office action issued after filing), the applicant has the opportunity to engage with a different decision-maker. That is, the applicant can appeal a pending rejection to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and at least three PTAB judges will then evaluate the rationale provided by the examiner and applicant (referred to as an “appellant” when the PTAB is handling a matter). Alternatively, the applicant can continue to engage with the examiner (which may require filing a Request for Continued Examination and paying the associated fee) or can let the application go abandoned.
― Wednesday, 22nd September 2021 ToolGen Files Reply to CVC Opposition to ToolGen Substantive Motion No. 1
On July 15th, Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") filed its opposition to Senior Party ToolGen's Substantive Motion No. 1 for benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/837,481, filed June 20, 2013 ("P3" or "ToolGen P3"), or alternatively, International Application No. PCT/KR2013/009488, filed Oct. 23, 2013 ("PCT"), in Interference No. 106,127. On August 27th ToolGen filed its Reply.