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.
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at email@example.com
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
Indian patent law, IPAB, biosimilars,