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.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
Indian patent law, IPAB, biosimilars,