― 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.
― Monday, 3rd October 2022 Sanofi Unsuccessful In Its Opposition To Amgen’s Australian Patent Applications
The first substantive Australian decision in the global
dispute over Amgen’s PCSK9 antibody patents has now been handed down by the
Australian Patent Office in Sanofi v Amgen Inc.  APO 67. Sanofi
challenged the validity of five of Amgen’s patent applications directed to
PCSK9 antibodies and was unsuccessful on all grounds.
― Monday, 3rd October 2022 CAFC Affirms Merck’s Win at PTAB over Mylan Challenge to Diabetes Treatment Claims
In its third precedential patent opinion this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) earlier today upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding that Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. failed to show that certain claims of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.’s patent for a Type 2 Diabetes treatment were anticipated or would have been obvious over the cited prior art. Judge Lourie authored the opinion.
― Monday, 3rd October 2022 Other Barks & Bites for Friday, September 30: CAFC Splits on Transfer Ruling; Chief Justice Roberts Stays CAFC Mandate in Gilenya Case; and TTAB Says No Mark Abandonment for Non-Use During Federal San
Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the mandate of the Federal Circuit issued this June reversing an earlier panel opinion that had upheld the validity of Novartis’ patent claims covering a dosing regimen for its multiple sclerosis treatment Gilenya, a ruling that IPWatchdog CEO and Founder Gene Quinn called “procedural insanity [that] is literally unprecedented” after the dissenting view from the earlier panel opinion upholding patent validity became the majority opinion of the Federal Circuit’s decision on rehearing.