Robert Kneschke / Shutterstock.com
Recent decisions suggest that the Indian system seems to be changing direction towards developing sound patent law jurisprudence, says Archana Shanker.
The winds of change are blowing slowly over the Indian patent landscape. After the decision of the Supreme Court in the Glivec case and the series of revocations of patents by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), the Indian system seems to be changing direction towards developing sound patent law jurisprudence. It’s therefore worthwhile to examine how the various judicial forums have dealt with various aspects of Indian patent law in the last few months.
In 2012, the Controller General in the Natco v Bayer case granted a compulsory licence to Natco for the patent covering Nexavar (sorafenib). In the appeal, the IPAB upheld the order of the Controller General with a slight, yet significant, revision to the order. The IPAB reversed the finding of the Controller on working and held that in some cases importation can amount to working.
You need a subscription to continue reading this content.
To access the full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need to take out a paid subscription.
News stories up to a week old and feature articles on the day of publication are accessible with a BASIC FREE ACCOUNT.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website, archive, and to receive print publications, choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial with full access, select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’; and for basic access to the latest news on the website and weekly email news alerts choose the 'BASIC FREE ACCOUNT' registration.
Indian patent law, IPAB, biosimilars,