At-a-glance:
Intellectual Property Office
Intellectual Property Office Building, Plot No 32, Sector 14, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, India
Tel: +91 11 28034304, Fax: +91 11 28034301
Email: delhi-patent@nic.in
Website: www.patentoffice.nic.in
India's...
[more]
At-a-glance:
Intellectual Property Office
Intellectual Property Office Building, Plot No 32, Sector 14, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, India
Tel: +91 11 28034304,
Fax: +91 11 28034301
Email: delhi-patent@nic.in
Website: www.patentoffice.nic.in
India's pharmaceutical industry has been making headlines for many years, but in 2012 it took centre stage with several high-profile patent cases. In March, India issued the country's first compulsory licence, allowing Natco to legally manufacture and sell a low-cost generic version of Bayer's patented cancer drug Nexavar at a fraction of the cost. The compulsory licence was granted on the grounds that the drug made available by Bayer was only affordable to a very small number of patients.
A series of patent cancellations also grabbed headlines, namely the revoking of Pfizer's patent on cancer drug Sutent and Roche's patent on Pegasys, a hepatitis medication. Britain's AstraZeneca was also refused patent protection by the IPAB for its cancer drug, Gefitinib.
The general consensus is that the Indian government is trying to increase healthcare access by making cheaper generic drugs availableto a wider population, with the lack of innovation as the cited reason for patent revocations. Nevertheless, multinational pharmaceutical companies are increasingly concerned that these decisions undermine IP rights in India. With the likelihood of more compulsory licences in the future, practitioners expect to see more patent litigation.
On the trade mark side, it has been another year of talk and little progress on accession to the Madrid Protocol. The Trade Mark Office has managed to reduce the substantial backlog from the previous year, but administrative delays are still expected until the entire backlog is cleared. One practitioner notes: "We have been talking about India joining the Madrid Protocol for several years now and with the backlog at the trade mark office, realistically, I do not think India will be joining this year."
One of the major changes to the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 2010 is Section 23(i), stating that the registration process for a mark is to be completed within 18 months of application filing, bringing India in line with Madrid Protocol requirements. Given the current situation at the Trade Mark Office, this presents a huge challenge.
The most notable trade mark case in 2012 concerned the principle of international exhaustion and the notion of parallel imports. The Delhi High Court Divisional Bench's ruling in the Samsung Electronics v Kapil Wadhwa case held that the principle of international exhaustion of trade marks applies, and that legitimate goods purchased in a different jurisdiction may be sold in India without violating the brand owner's trade mark.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012 finally came into effect in June, signalling a new era of extended rights for artistic work, cinematographic films and sound recordings. The Act now declares authors as owners of royalty rights, which cannot be assigned to producers, as was the practice till now. It will benefit lyricists, composers and people with disabilities, and extend to unpublished work. It is now compulsory for radio stations and broadcasters to pay royalties every time they air a recording.
[hide]