Gen - X ideas on IP

Boll Guard III: To enter in India by 2020

2011-11-30T10:33:00.001+05:30

Bollgard III, advanced version of GM Cotton and the new research product from the US agri-science major Monsanto, Bollgard III will be resistant to bollworm, army worm and pink bollworm as well as herbicide tolerant as per Dr Roy Cantrell, Global Cotton Breeding Lead of Monsanto.

The work on Bollgard III is at the advanced stage in US and Brazil and in these countries and it is expected to be commercially released by 2016-17. It is believed by Monsanto Officials that it will take some more time and likely to be released in India by around 2020. Bollgard I and II are currently being used by Indian farmers. Also, with the introduction of Bollgard II and because of not up to the mark performance of BG I, the use of BG I is declining gradually. The data reveals that use of Bollgard II has increased with the variety being sown in over 70% of the total 118 lakh hectares under cotton in the country.

Bollgard III has got approval from the US and Australian Governments for regulatory field trials."It is at a stage where the genes are being analysed. In Brazil, it is under the consideration of the regulator" Whereas for India, research is on to decide what genes to include and it is at a very early stage as informed by Dr. Cantrell who is in connection with the Fifth World Cotton Research Conference.

Monsanto is also planning to introduce the concept of "Refuge in the bag" cotton in the cotton market, according to this theory farmers are supposed to plant Bt cotton with the borders comprising of non-Bt cotton varieties so as to ensure no cross pollination of other fields or crop.

"However, Governments will have to approve the Refuge in the Bag process. In the US, it is a non-issue since you don't need a refuge area for cotton, though you will need one for corn," said Dr Cantrell. Asked about reports of poor performance of Bollgard I currently in India, he said it was one of the reasons why farmers were shifting to Bollgard II.

Yet another Concern – PPV&FR Act, 2011

2011-10-07T16:19:00.004+05:30

Dear Friends,

In continuation with my previous post dated 26^th Dec 2010, I had pointed out flaw in publication of gazette notification S. O. 2883(E) dated 2nd December 2010, notifying registration of 11 crops for registration “not being extant varieties and farmers’ varieties”.

Yet another Gazette Notification is issued by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority S.O. 1913 (E) dated 18th August, 2011, notifying 9 crop- species eligible for registration. The 9 crop species namely Coconut, Sadabahar/Periwinkle, Brahmi / Indian pennywort, Rose, Isabgol /Blond Psyllium, Pudina/ Menthol/ Mint and 3 species of wheat.

One concern that came to my mind after going through the recent Journal i.e. the Plant Variety Journal of October 2011 was that if the Gazette notification was issued way back on 18^th August 2011, then why was the same not uploaded in the download section of the official website of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority of India, where other such gazette notifications were usually uploaded. Also, the other thing to notice here is that, why the Registry had not published the Public Notice informing about the said gazette in the Plant Variety Journal of September 2011 rather than publishing it in the recent October Journal.

These lacunae in the working of Plant Variety Authority and Registry raise serious concerns both in the perspective of Seeds Industry and Indian Farmers’. Why is this sluggish and irresponsible approach adopted by the Authority and Registry in its working? There is already a serious concern for protection of Farmers’ rights and protection of Farmers’ varieties in India. Though the Act provides for various liberties to Farmers’, but are these implemented in the real world. If the sluggish approach by the Registry / Authority continues in the same manner it would lead to a grave situation for farmers who will lose all rights on the varieties developed by them. As the information hardly reaches the farmers well in time or sometimes not at all, because the only source of information about publication of the varieties and other such public notifications are the Plant Variety Journals which are circulated on subscription. Too best of my knowledge and belief, hardly any individual farmer or even group of farmers would have subscribed for these Journals.

In my view a lot more has to be done on part of the Authority to bring speedy the process, leave the casual approach and most important to take suitable steps for wide circulation of the Plant Variety Journals in the form of newspapers, magazines or other such means.

IP Protection of Seeds: Technology Enters Indian Market

2011-09-21T15:01:00.003+05:30

IP protection of seeds is an innovative technology and is one of its kind, which enables seed, grain, and other bulk commodities to be identified accurately and cost effectively right down to an individual batch number. This provides both detection of counterfeit target commodities, and a control mechanism for internal or cross border end-to-end supply chain management.
There are 2 kinds of technologies available:
Visual Protection of Seeds: The small dots, with the specific text, can be put on the seeds by means of our special and dedicated equipment and protocols. The dots (<0.2mm) can be checked easily with a potable microscope.
Non Visible Protection of Seeds: This marker can be put on the seeds by means of coating equipment or protocols. The special coating can be read with a special reader to read out a generic code or the company specific code. The tracer/ marker can even be picked up/ read from left-over seed skin, various weeks after planting. Thus the Seed Companies can trace their seed material even in the fields many days after sowing also.
This Technology offers the following advantages:
• Better and tamper proof protection of seeds
• Prevents counterfeiting, product diversion, false warranty claims etc
• 100 % Proof of ownership
• General Batch ID on seeds
• Traceable in the soil
• Forensic proof of origin
• Confidence and reliability
• GMO Supportive (possibility to trace commodities with and without GMO)
• Track & Trace-ability
• Cross border control, trace your product in several regions, countries
• Multilayer and Multiple key technology
• Cost effective (available for valuable seeds and for bulk seeds)
Similarly, IP protection on packaging material can also be done with visible and cover protected labels. The advantage of this technology is that, the code is even traceable when the label is removed. Also, the labels cannot be removed without visual damaging of the labels; the labels can be made with the logo of the Proprietor Company or any other specific text.
In the year 2010, during summer season, farmers of A.P. raised the concern and protested against spurious seeds that had flooded the market, this protest had prompted state government to detect and seize the spurious seed marketed by some companies. Thereby to solve such IP based issues this technology can prove to be a rescuer. This technology has entered the Indian Seed Industry, its identification and authentication technology has been availed by Hyderabad based Seed works India Pvt. Ltd.

Nuziveedu's Plea Accepted_ Jurisdiction Aspect of PPV&FR Act

2011-07-26T10:36:00.003+05:30

Dear readers, in a recent order dated 25th July 2011the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has accepted the plea of M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd. that the matters related to PPV&FR Act, All India Jurisdiction. Full article in the matter as published in the Times of India can be assessed here.

There are various matters pending with the High Court of Andhra Pradesh out of these various matters 3 had been dismissed based on territorial jurisdiction aspect. Now, as in the present matter the appeal has been admitted by the division bench of the High Court comprising of Chief Justice Nisar Ahmad Kakru and Justice Vilas Afzalpurkar, it would be interesting to see if the matters could be decided by other Courts, or if only Delhi High Court is the only way out.

Top 10 Successful Inventors: India Nowhere...

2011-07-20T10:52:00.017+05:30

Dear Friends,

This is the list of Top 10 Inventors in terms of Number of Patent Applications filed by them:

1. Kia Silverbrook from Balmain, AU
Number of Patent applications: 1629

2. Lowell L. Wood, Jr. from Bellevue, WA, US
Number of Patent applications: 965

3. Roderick A. Hyde from Redmond, WA, US
Number of Patent applications: 857

4. Edward K.y. Jung from Bellevue, WA, US
Number of Patent applications: 612

5. Eric C. Leuthardt from St. Louis, MO, US
Number of Patent applications: 611

6. Clarence T. Tegreene from Bellevue, WA, US
Number of Patent applications: 578

7. Muriel Y. Ishikawa from Livermore, CA, US
Number of Patent applications: 549

8. Royce A. Levien from Lexington, MA, US
Number of Patent applications: 511

9. Robert W. Lord from Seattle, WA, US
Number of Patent applications: 507

10. Paul Lapstun from Balmain, AU
Number of Patent applications: 479

Now, from the given list of top 10 successful inventors all over the world it is clearly visible that nobody from India holds a position in the list, not even in the list of top 100 inventors, check out the link for the list of Top 100 inventors:
http://www.faqs.org/patents/invl/00000

It is a matter of great concern that despite huge investments on infrasturcture and R&D facilities in India, what is the reason due to which Indian inventors are lagging behind in the race. Is it beacuse of our strict Patent Act and Rules or is it because of unawareness about the IP issues? Kindly share your views, what may be the reason behind this failure according to you?

Leader in Patent Quality: EPO

2011-07-01T11:51:00.002+05:30

Munich, 28 June 2011 — The European Patent Office (EPO) ranks first for patent quality among the world’s five largest patent offices including USPTO and JPO, this is the second year in a row when EPO has achieved this position and has even improved its position over last year. This survey of corporate and private practice IP professionals was conducted jointly by Thomson Reuters and Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine.

As per the survey, 74% of in-house counsels revealed that the quality of patents granted by the EPO is “excellent or very good” (as compared to 71% in the last year), with 62% of the private practice attorneys sharing the same view (as compared to 56% in the last year). The Japan Patent Office ranked second with 57% and 43% respectively, followed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (50% and 37%), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (34% and 24%) and the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (23% and 13%).

This survey reveals that the quality of patents granted by the EPO has improved from previous years: 22% of the in-house attorneys from companies and 26% of their counterparts in private practice agreed with this view, while roughly two thirds of the respondents thought that it had stayed the same, and 7% and 9% respectively answered that the quality had deteriorated.

EPO President Benoît Battistelli said that “The results of this survey are a renewed confirmation of the EPO’s efforts to strengthen the quality of European patents for the benefit of society and the economy”.

Implementation of Indian PPV & FR Act and Rules: Inadequacies leading to avoidable litigations

2011-06-18T16:08:00.007+05:30

Dear Readers, I would like to draw your attention towards the manner in which the PPV&FR, Act is being implemented in our country. I with my team did an extensive research on the subject and thus, gave it the shape of a research paper or manuscript for an easy understanding of the same. The full article can be accessed from the attached link. The abstract is pasted here for your views and comments.

"The Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act has now been a decade old and post PPV&FR implementation implications are now clearly visible. The shortcomings and inadequacies in the Act and the Rules are a matter of grave concern to the seed industry in particular and Indian agriculture in general and the inadequacies in the PPV&FR Act, Rules and implementation need to be addressed and resolved, by the Central Government and the PPV&FR Authority in order to meet the objectives enshrined in the Act. These inadequacies are seen in terms of slow-moving approach for database maintenance of existing varieties, notification of crop species eligible for registration, duration and effect of registration of extant notified varieties and varieties of common knowledge, ambiguity in parent line and hybrid registration under new variety and/or extant variety category, powers of the Registrar, advertisements published in Plant Variety (PV) Journals, registration of transgenic varieties, parent lines etc. This paper highlights the issues that need to be resolved to avoid misuse of the Act and thereby unwarranted litigations."

Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Resigns

2011-06-15T14:06:00.006+05:30

Transperancy in IPO is now at stake as The Controller Mr. P.H. Kurian makes a sudden exit. Its a shocking and surprising news for all of the IP Professionals as Mr. Kurian still had many more months left in his tenure.
Mr. Kurien had incorporated many new initiatives to bring transperancy in the working of Indian Patent office. Some of these initiatives are mentioned as follows:
1. Upgraded the technology used in operations of IPO
2. Reconstuction of 4404 missing trademark files etc.
People involved in the IP industry are now wondering that what will happen to these initiatives, whether they will be carry forwarded by the new Controller General or not?
Lets be hopeful and wish Mr. Kurien success in his future endeavors on behalf of all the members of Gen X Ideas on IP.

Patent Agent Exam Results-2011

2011-05-25T20:38:00.000+05:30

It is again the time of the year when we IP fellows get anxious as results of one of the most important exam of our community is declared during this time.

This year out of 1089 candidates who had taken the exam, 201 where able to clear the same. Heartiest Congratulations to all from Gen X Ideas on IP.

Our Special Congratulations to Ms. Purwa Rathi and Mr. Hari Mohan Naidu B. for clearing the exam. We wish you success in all your future endeavors and guys keep up the good work!!!!

Explore IP Marketplace - Tech Roadshow 2011

2011-03-07T15:23:00.004+05:30

After the phenomenal success of Tech Transfer 2010 - INDIA’S 1^st ever technology roadshow, SkyQuest Technology Consulting (SkyQuest) in Association with Foundation for MSME Clusters (FMC) is glad to announce a series of Technology Roadshows at National level in the month of March 2011. These Roadshows are conceptualized to promote National as well as International Technologies from Life Sciences sector aiming their commercialization and bridging the gap between the innovators and the Entrepreneurs. The four roadshows will offer the best marketplace to showcase & transact technologies spanning the major Pharma & Medical device clusters of India.

Industry Stakeholders could capitalize on their business needs through this one-of-its-kind Tech Roadshow 2011 platform. Moreover, for the first time ever the Innovators, of these novel technologies, will be available to directly present their technologies to potential buyers & interested parties. The buyers, representing nearly a mix of 50 Industry players across India are expected to discover novel potential technologies. Besides addressing the direct need of technologies it will foretell the business needs for tomorrow, give information on latest innovations in respective fields, meet the people (brilliant minds) behind the research, help gain competitive edge over others and initiate the commercialization discussions. For more information you could visit http://skyquestt.com/techroadshow2011.html.

These roadshows will spearhead the best IP marketplace at four different destinations across India in the month of March 2011.

15^th - Vishakhapatnam | 17^th - Hyderabad| 19^th – Ahmedabad | 22^nd - Vadodara

Companies can explore opportunities in soaring their businesses through novel technologies, as we all know the next wave to remain competitive is Technology. Limited seats….. Free Registration before 10^th March 2011.

Look forward for your support and co-operation to collectively create an IP marketplace.

For more details contact: Mr. Anil Hooda| Technology Associate

anil.hooda@skyquestt.com | B: +91- 79 - 4005 4111, 4008 8136 | Fax: +91-79-4005 4113

Status of Farmer’s Varieties under Plant Varieties Registry

2011-02-18T09:46:00.004+05:30

India’s PPV&FR Act, 2001 has the provisions of Plant Variety Registration for various kinds of varieties as New, Essentially Derived Varieties (EDV), and Extant. Farmer Variety comes under the purview of the Extant Variety category. Farmer Variety (FV) has been defined under the Section 2(l) of PPV&FR Act as a variety which-(i) has been traditionally cultivated and evolved by the farmers in their fields; or (ii) is a wild relative or land race of a variety about which the farmers possess the common knowledge.

According to the information updated on Authority’s website (here), 55 applications have been filed under the extant variety category as farmer variety till 22 November, 2010. Authority has been issued the certificates for the three rice varieties as (i) Tilak Chandan (ii) Hansraj and (iii) INDRASAN. The remaining varieties are under the process, if they satisfied the criteria formulated by the authority then certificate can be issued.

Under the farmer’s variety category, Rice is the crops for which highest no of applications were filed and certificates issued. The details about the crop wise applications as follows;

S.No.	Crops	Applications
1.	Rice (Oryza sativa)	39
2.	Wheat (Triticum astivum)	6
3.	French bean / Kidney bean (Phasealues vulgaris)	5
4.	Bengal Gram(Cicer arietinum)	2
5.	Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan)	2
6.	Jowar (Sorghum bicolor)	1

In the year of 2009, highest no of applications were filed. The detail about the year wise filings as follow;

S.No.	Years	Applications
1.	2006	0
2.	2007	2
3.	2008	5
4.	2009	44
5.	2010	4

As the India’s Plant Variety Protection Law has the unique provision of Farmer Variety (FV) compare to most of the countries in the world. It will help the farmer community to establish their right under the provisions of said Act & Rules, and enjoy the proprietorship and other benefit.

Please contact for further clarification, if required;

Onkar Singh,

onkarsingh.naarm@gmail.com

“Turmeric City” is seeking Legal Identity under GI Registration

2011-02-14T10:39:00.003+05:30

India is the house of many worlds’ famous spices, which have quality, uniqueness and reputation i.e. Alleppey finger turmeric, Cochin Ginger, Sikkim Cardamom, Erode Turmeric, Ramanadu Mundu Chilli, Lakadong Turmeric, Kanpur Coriander etc. We know that the uniqness, reputation and quality are mandatory requirements to be met by a GI. It is also relevant to mention here that Spice Board of India has got GI registrations for various important spices as Malabar pepper, Alleppey green cardamom and Coorg green cardamom. According to ET report (here), Spice Board of India is in process to file various other GI applications and waiting for the certificates of applied GIs.

Erode District is an important market centre for Turmeric and it holds 43% share of total turmeric production in India. Erode is Asia’s largest exporter of Turmeric. The district is the top turmeric producer in Tamil Nadu also. Due to the highest quality of product, Erode is known as "The Turmeric City". It is to inform the readers that, GI application for the Erode Turmeric has been filed on 4^th Jan, 2011 under class 30 as Agricultural goods. The application No is 231. The said application is filed by Erode Manjal vanigarkal Matrum Kidangu Urimaiyalargal Sangam and technical support provide by one of the most renowned organization. The application is in pre-examination stage. Ones the Erode Turmeric get GI registration. Subsequently it may offer a better price for growers, traders and exporters.

we hope that it will prove its uniqueness, quality, reputation and other require mandatory criteria and get the registration certificate at the earliest.

Making Publicly Funded Research for International Public Good

2011-02-13T13:37:00.003+05:30

The goal of any publicly funded research institutions is to develop ‘International Public Goods’ (IPGs). However, under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) regime, it is important to secure ownership rights on research outputs and to make them available and accessible. With the introduction of bill ‘Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008 on the lines of ‘The Bayh–Dole Act’ in Parliament of India, we can say that the efforts are being made in this direction but whether these efforts result in formulation of policies for open access (OA) to scientific knowledge is the question.

Peter Suber (2008) defines Open-access (OA) literature as digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work (Wikipedia contributors, 2011). The researchers share their research outputs via scientific journals, conference proceedings, books etc. However, many of the authors (researchers) give away their copyright to the publishers. With this, sharing of research globally boundaries is restricted due to copyright issues. Though, all the publisher makes available ‘Post Print’ or ‘Publishers PDF Copy’ to the authors, they can be share among research colleagues, for personal use or for scholarly purposes however cannot be shared/distributed in public globally. This is making sharing of IPGs research output globally difficult as the public (even research users) had to send request to the authors for the articles and at times when the article is not in digital format or change in author’s corresponding email or affiliation, one cannot get access to the articles.

The author of a scientific article should secure rights to create derivative works from his/her article and to reproduce, distribute and publicly display his/her article (http://scholars.sciencecommons.org/). The SPARC Author Addendum is a legal instrument that modifies the publisher’s agreement and allows you to keep key rights to your articles and offer a range of copyright options for many different creative endeavours (http://www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.shtml). The initiatives from Creative Commons in the development of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY) to Share, Remix, Reuse — Legally and efforts in making scientific research “re-useful” — via the Scholar's Copyright Project (in partnership with SPARC) is highly commendable and the authors should use them for broad distribution of their works for International Public Good.

Darjeeling Tea: Facing Legal Tribulations

2011-02-11T08:36:00.005+05:30

The Tea Board of India, a statutory body was set up by the Union Ministry of Trade and Commerce under the Tea Act, 1953. The Tea Board of India has taken initiative to file application for registration of Darjeeling tea as agricultural product in class 30 under Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 and rules 2002. The said board has filed two applications as application No.1 for word “Darjeeling tea” and application No. 2 for logo (here) on 27.10.2003.The Tea Board constituted with an objective of promoting and protecting Tea Export claimed as representative of growers. Based upon such representation, Darjeeling tea received Geographical Indication(GI) status in 2004 and became first Indian product to received GI Tag. It is not very clear to me, does the “Darjeeling Tea” Word & Logo can be registered as GI and trademark simultaneously without any overlapping in Acts.

Issues: It was reported (here) that, The Tea Boards control of the GI tag which makes small farmers unhappy because they are not included in the list of authorized users. At present, small farmers outside the 87 tea estates need to sell their produce to any of the listed tea plantations, which then sell it in the open market as Darjeeling tea. The tea market has enough space for both big plantations and small farmers. The interest of the large community of small farmers needs to protect under the said registered GI.

Legal Practices Involves: A petition was filed by Shri Rajeev Saraf, New Delhi, on various grounds i.e. ingenuity of the ownership according the act and rules, to the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPTMA). CGPTMA has admitted the petition for correction or removal of the respective GI registration. The petition has been sent to the Intellectual Property Office at Chennai where the GI Registry is located for resolving the dispute. The GI Registry, India through its letter dated 27.04.2009 has advised the Proprietor i.e. Tea Board, Kolkata to move for rectification of their GI.

Recently, the Tea Board applied for Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) with European Council. The objections filed by Shri Rajeev Saraf to the Tea board, India application for registration of PGI with EC has been admitted and EC has directed as under:-

“invites the interested party the Tea Board, Kolkotta, India and the Indian objector to engage in appropriate consultations for a period of 6 months from the date of notification and the Tea Board has to inform the commission of the results of these consultations preferably using the form in Annex IV of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1898/2006 within one after termination of six months.

The objective to file objections was to highlight the issues that the GI's cannot be owned by the Government authorities and the principal stakeholders should be the true owners. It is now for the Tea Board to act earnestly

Some points from Act:

Under Section 2 (k) of the Act, the term ‘Producer’ defines as the actual producers of the goods and includes the person who processes and packages the same.

Under Section 11 of the Act, defines the applicant eligible for applying for registration of any GI as follows; “Any association of persons or producers or any organization or authority established by or under any law for the time being in force representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous of registering a geographical indication in relation to such goods shall apply in writing to the Registrar in such form and in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed for the registration of the geographical indication”.

Interpretation: All the growers of Darjeeling Tea are not the members of ‘Tea Board’ and nor the same has been constituted with an objective to protect the interests of Tea growers, The Tea Board constituted with an objective of promoting and protecting Tea Export and thus the applicant has to be an authority in law competent to do so. Pursuant to the objectives of this GI Act 1999 and not earlier. Above said section, doesn’t enable the Government agencies to apply for any GI registration because in the Government organisation the producer has not role to play and nor they are the constituent of the same.

The applicant for GI registration should be an association of persons or producers or any organizations or authority representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods. In consequence all the existing bonafide growers are made unauthorized users, as the GI Laws gives protection to only registered authorised users. In the case of Darjeeling tea, the Tea Board mentions no authorised users.

Peoples Views:

Mr.Vinay Jain, advocate, Delhi High Court, said that “as the purpose of GI Acts is to protect producers and their rights at the grassroots level, the applicant must represent the entire grower and farmer community of Darjeeling Tea. Tea Board of India does not fully represent all the producers, specifically small farmers, linked with the production of Darjeeling tea and nor is it a body specifically constituted to protect the interest of growers”.

Mr.T.C.James, Director, IPR Division, DIPP, Ministry of Commerce and Industry says that “everyone loses if Darjeeling tea loses its GI status, given that the legal protection it provides helps boost exports”. “Tea Board must be given credit for taking the initiative to register it as the first Indian good under the GI Act”. "If, however, there are those who believe it was wrongly registered there is a legal mechanism to address their grievances,”

Dr.S. K. Soam, Principal Scientist & Professor, National Academy of Agricultural Research Management (NAARM says that “Ownership of Tea Board should never be questioned within the meaning of law. Owner (proprietor) and Authorised user are different concept. All authorized users are not owners, while owner is always authorized user. Whether any producer has applied for authorized user through owner i.e. Tea Board? If not, it is not fault of owner, whether Tea Board has denied to any applicant for authorized user? Another question is representing interest of producers, in principle, all public boards are constituted for that only. To what extent they contributed towards this purpose, it may interest to know. For example, labourers in Darjeeling tea gardens are also producers. Did they get share of profit resulted after GI protection, in terms of higher wages compare to other agricultural labourers in the region? Did Tea Board developed community infrastructure or networking like Self Help Groups in the region? If not, then owner of the GI failed in the duty of true representative of the producers but it does not dilute the claim of ownership over Darjeeling tea”.

I hope that issues will be resolve very soon. What will be the future status of Darjeeling tea? This will decided by proceedings in coming days.

Domestic Generic Drug Manufacturers- Time to Celebrate

2011-02-07T10:14:00.010+05:30

Domestic generic drug manufacturers are looking forward for huge business by the end of next year i.e. 2012, as around $3-4 billion worth blockbuster drugs going off patent i.e. losing patent protection in the US by the end of Year 2011-2012.

Drugs around $30-40 billion worth , including top-selling drugs like Lipitor (Pfizer), Nexium (Astra Zeneca) and Plavix ( Bristol Myers Squibb), are going to be out of the scope of patent protection this year or by the end of next year. As soon as the patents for these popular drugs will expire, it will open doors for generic drug manufacturers to launch their products in the US market. It is a huge opportunity for domestic generic companies, such as Dr Reddy's Labs, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Cipla Ltd., Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Lupin Ltd. over the next few years.

Experts feel that once generic drug versions appear in the market, it will lead to around 90% price reductions, and due to the intense market competition, both the original brand and me-too versions will be sold at a very lower price.

Ranbaxy is expected to launch generic Lipitor, which is the largest-selling drug in the whole world, after settlement with Pfizer. It is the #1 prescribed cholesterol-lowering medicine in the world and one of the most widely studied medicines— with more than 18 years of research. It has been studied in over 400 ongoing or completed clinical studies involving over 80,000 patients.

First-to-file (FTF) applications filed by generic companies, which ensures 180-day market exclusivity to the drug manufacturer is going to be cherry on the cake for generic companies. The first-to-file Para IV certification on cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor lies with Ranbaxy.

Another approach is authorized agreement between the innovator and generic drug manufactureres who partners to sell a "me too" version, allowing the innovator to hold the larger share of revenues generated thereby. This is a Win-Win situation for both parties. Similarly, Merck had already entered in such an agreement with Dr Reddy's to launch generic versions of simvastatin (Zocor) and finasteride (Proscar) in the US market.

The opportunity for domestic generics is huge, but competition is also huge because all generic companies both Indian, Western (Teva) as well as big MNC's (Pfizer) will also be competing for the same drugs.

Some important launches include Dr Reddy's, Aurobindo, Ranbaxy, Torrent and Wockhardt of generic diabetes drug Actos (innovator Takeda), while Sun Pharma and Lupin have settled with Wyeth for anti-depressant pill Effexor last year.

It is expected that these generic companies will file aggressively for these drugs on FTF basis. Ranjit Kapadia, vice-president institutional sales, HDFC Securities, said "The full benefit (of patent expirations) will be available to generic companies only from next fiscal. During this year we will see only a part of the contribution."

Source:
Newspaper: The Mint (Hindustan Times)
Section: Corporate News
Date: 4th Feb, 2011

Farmer’s varieties are waiting to file under PPV &FR Act, 2001

2011-02-05T11:20:00.007+05:30

This blog post is my personal analysis view about an article published (here). Our readers must be aware that Orissa is known as “treasure house of paddy”. According to a survey conducted by the Orissa government in 1970s found around 1,700 varieties of paddy in Jeypore area of Koraput district, Orissa. Agriculture officials of Orissa believe that around 1,000 varieties have already vanished since the last survey was done in the Seventies. Of the remaining, some could be duplicates and finally conservative estimate record is about 300 varieties.

The Orissa government is planning to facilitate the interest of farmers by applying for registration of almost 300 traditional varieties of paddy under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Right Act, 2001 to Plant Varieties Registry

Director of Agriculture, R S Gopalan, said, "We plan to launch a campaign from mid-February to collect sample seeds of traditional varieties, identify and confirm them through morphological characteristics." Mr. Gopalan has requested to farmers, act as facilitators and inform officers about traditional varieties in the area and If possible, provide seed samples of five kg.

I would like to inform the readers that Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology is recipient of seven paddy Varieties by PPV&FR Authority. Subsequently, OUAT has issued notices with regards to breeder rights (here) and (here). Add to the information, Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI) is also located in Cuttack, Orissa. One of the objectives of CRRI is to conduct basic, applied and adaptive research on crop improvement and resource management for increasing and stabilizing rice productivity in different rice ecosystems. The M S Swaminathan Research Foundation also has a branch in Jeypore, and some central and state government organization may extend their support in this regard.

Agriculture minister, Damodar Rout said that "Many of the traditional paddy varieties have unique characteristics not possessed by popular high-yielding varieties”.

Views:

Does all the above varieties can qualify as farmer’s varieties?

According to Section 2 (l) of PPV&FR Act, defines “farmers’ variety” as a variety which (i) has been traditionally cultivated and evolved by the farmers in their fields; or

(ii) is a wild relative or land race or a variety about which the farmers possess the common knowledge;

As, the above article stated that all the above varieties are traditionally cultivated since 1970, if it is documentary supported then said varieties fits well in the frame of farmer’s variety.

What is the time limit of filing?

According to the gazette notification, issued by Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture on 1^st Nov, 2006 (here) which notifies the 12 crops genera and species eligible for registration (Paddy is one of them). According to rule 24 of PPV&FR Rules-2003, the farmer variety comes under the Extant variety category. Hence, the application for registration shall be file within three year from the date of said gazette notification.

What will happen? If the time limit for filing the application (three years from the date of notification) has been elapsed according to above mentioned gazette? As the year 2011 is running.

Central Government has amended (here) the rule 24, especially in context of farmer variety in Oct 2009, before expiration of said period. The amendment extends the time up to five year from the date of notification or may be more than that. Hence farmers are entitling for file the application.

What will be the protection period for the farmer’s varieties, if registered?

According to the section 24(6), the total period of validity shall not exceed fifteen years from the date of registration. Hence farmer’s variety can get protection period fifteen years from the date of registration.

I hope that most of the farmer’s varieties will be applying for registration to PPV&FR Registry, and get registration certificates at the earliest. It will assist in the farmers social- economic condition.

A debate on compliance of Indian Patent Act with TRIPs

2011-02-04T10:12:00.011+05:30

Dear Friends...
Have a look at the following discussion (It is going on in the group IP Pro of Linkedin entitled "An unconventional, back-door, approach to diplomacy?" ). Its very interesting and controversial in a way. Also, we must contribute to the discussion because it is about finding loop holes with Indian Patent Laws.
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?srchtype=discussedNews&trk=EML_anet_ac_pst_ttle&gid=89700&view=&item=41513813&type=member

Trends of filing and publication for PVP in India

2011-02-03T14:27:00.010+05:30

After completion of three years since the initiation of PVP Registrations in India, more than 1908 applications have been filed till date, out of which 673 applications fall under the category of New Plant Varieties, 1180 under Extant Notified Varieties and 55 under Farmers Variety. This data reveals fairly good number of filings till date, also the number filings are increasing per annum. In the year 2010, till August 31,total 253 applications have been filed, out of which maximum 201 applications have been filed under the category of New Plant Varieties followed by 47 (Extant Variety), 4 (Farmers Variety) and 1 (Essentially Derived Varieties). As far as crops are concerned, maximum filings have been done for commercial crops such as Maize, Cotton, Pearl millet, Rice and Bread Wheat.

If you give an eye to the Plant Variety Journals (PVJ’S), you will be noticing a huge gap between the number of applications filed i.e. 1908 (Till 2010) and number of applications published i.e. 626 (Till Jan, 2011), this gap shows that the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Authority (PPV and FRA) is lagging behind in terms of scrutiny of applications. The load of applications will only increase in future and that too with an immensely higher rate , if they are having backlog with such a small number of applications, I am afraid how they will be handling the future load. I therefore suggest that PPV and FR Authority should take some serious steps to strategise their future actions and plans regarding this issue and should enhance their capabilities in terms of manpower and other resources.

WIPO Vs WIPD: Battle begins

2011-01-18T01:21:00.003+05:30

This blog post is the extract of IPKAT Post (here), presented here in different form to understand the issue very clearly. As, our readers are well aware about WIPO and its role. WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization has initiated legal proceedings against the imitation website of the World Intellectual Property Database (WIPD). It came to notice of WIPO in September, 2010. This site WIPD and its contents appearance can be said as highly organized and persistent fraud operation. WIPO Secretariat is taking all the possible efforts to takle this issue at the earliest.

Some facts:

1. WIPO Website has Domain name as www.wipo.int. While, WIPD has the domain name as http://www.wipd.biz.

2. WIPO has the tagline as “Encouraging Creativity and Innovation” while, WIPD has tagline as “Imagine Creativity and Innovation”.

3. WIPO & WIPD homepage have the colour combination of the font is very similar appearance.

4. WIPO & WIPD both site are have the content related to IPR. But WIPD have contents for Patent & Trademark only.

5. Logo of WIPO (image here) and WIPD (image here) are also similar in appearance.

WIPO actions:

1. WIPO has already sent cease and desist letters, as per the present view of the site we can say that WIPD neither ceased nor desisted.

2. WIPO has also alerted the users of its international filing and registration services, who are the intended targets of the fraud.

3. The WIPO Secretariat has initiated consultations with the national authorities of the Czech Republic, where the site is hosted. Since they also host EURid's dispute resolution body, which can deal with .eu problems but not .biz.

4. WIPO has issued a warning about payment of fees. (Here). WIPO is currently pursuing further legal options to end the fraud.

As per my view, WIPO have so many grounds to prove the fraudulent behavior of WIPD. We hope WIPO will be succeeding to prove the fraudulent manner, adopted by the WIPD to take advantage of WIPO reputation.

Chinnappa Toys Vs China Toys

2011-01-17T01:26:00.009+05:30

According to ET (here). Channapatna wooden toys, a registered Geographical Indication (GI) of Karnataka state facing major problems due to China-made lookalikes toys .Channapatna toy can cost Rs 100, the same Chinese toy retails for just Rs 40.According to the complaint received by the Karnataka State Handicrafts Corporation that Chinese toys are being sold as Channapatna toys not only in India but also abroad. Now the said corporation is trying to prohibit such practices by legal tools.

Difference between Chinnappa toy & China toy:
1. Chinese toys are made up of jungle wood or rubber wood, while Chinnappa toys are made of ‘hale’ (soft) wood
2. Chinese toys are made up with use of chemical dyes, varnish and paint while Chinnappa toys by vegetable-based dyes and lacquer.
3. Chinese toys are chiselled and polished by machines while our toys are worked on by hand.

Procedure :
The Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 have some provisions in chapter VII: Offences, Penalties and Procedure. This can be use to initiated appropriate action against the Chinese toys makers.

A complaint can be made for offences under the Section 39, 40, 41 of the said act to any police officer not below the rank of DSP (Deputy Superintendent of police) or equivalent. If the officer satisfied then he has power to search & seize without warrant.

We hope that the product which is coming out from the massive efforts of the producers should not face such kinds of problems due to fake products.Proper enforcemnet procedures must be adopted at the earlist.

Trademark Search: No more paying of Rs 400/15 min

2011-01-14T00:45:00.003+05:30

Finally, Indian Patent Office (IPO) has made a notification stating that Trademark Search will be available to the public free of cost. Now, the trademark search can be conducted without any charge through the public search interface at IPO website. Earlier, a fee of Rs 400/- has to be paid in favor of IPO in order to conduct a search for 15 min and the search could be conducted only for a specific class. Such an initiative taken by the Indian Patent Office can be seen as an efficient measure towards enforcing the trademark rights.

In addition to that, The Patent & Trademark Office has also increased the fee from Rs 2,500/- to Rs 3,500 /- for filing of application to register a trade mark for a specification of goods or services in one class. The notification has been into effect from the date of notification (29.12.2010). All applicants/agents who have filed trade mark applications from 29.12.2010 onwards have been requested to tender the deficiencies in fees Rs 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) per application in respect of applications filed from the date of notification till issuance of this notice, on or before 30th . January, 2011, failing which the Registrar shall not act on the matter until the said additional fee has been paid. The deficiencies of fees received thereafter shall result in shifting of filing date to actual date of payment of balance fees.

Indian Patent Office issued notice to websites

2011-01-14T00:34:00.002+05:30

Recently, Indian Patent Office has released a notification, which clearly signals India’s objective towards a more effective enforcement of the Intellectual Property Regime in the country.

The notification directs towards websites which are casting itself as being related to the Indian Patent Office. The notification gives reference of Section 108 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which states that "If any person uses on his place of business, or on any document issued by him, or otherwise, words which would reasonably lead to the belief that his place of business is, or is officially connected with, the Trade Marks Office, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both". To keep it simple, the act defines provision of penalty for improperly describing a place of business as connected with the Trade Marks office. It has also been mentioned that complains had been lodged against such website. Such issue clearly comes under the purview of cyber-squatting. IPO has given a 7 day notice to discontinue such websites; notwithstanding such notice, action will be taken by the Controller General against the organizations.

The Patent office has not disclosed the name of such organizations which may come under the purview of such legal action. But, this notice is a red signal for the websites which are being said as misguiding the public as being connected to Indian Patent Office.

IBM owns maximum US patents in 2010

2011-01-11T12:46:00.010+05:30

IBM Corp. topped the list of U.S. patent winners in 2010 for the 18th year in a row, IBM inventors were granted 5,896 patents during the year 2010, followed by Samsung Electronics Co., with 4,551 patents.

List of top 10 Companies with maximum  U.S. patents awarded in the year 2010:

1. IBM Corp. (5,896)
2. Samsung Electronics Co. (4,551)
3. Microsoft Corp. (3,094)
4. Canon Inc. (2,552)
5. Panasonic Corp. (2,482)
6. Toshiba Corp. (2,246)
7. Sony Corp. (2,150)
8. Intel Corp. (1,653)
9. LG Electronics (1,490)
10. Hewlett-Packard Co. (1,480)

IBM's patents were generated in 2010 by more than 7,000 inventors in 46 states and 29countries working under an annual budget of about $6 billion.

Among the patents IBM won in 2010 were those for:
- A method for gathering, analyzing and processing patient information from multiple data sources to provide more effective diagnoses of medical conditions
- A system for predicting traffic conditions based on information exchanged over short-range wireless communications
- A technique that analyzes data from sensors in computer hard drives to enable faster emergency response in the event of earthquakes and other disasters
- Technology that lets computer chips to communicate using pulses of light instead of electrical signals, which could help computers work faster.

http://www.statesman.com/business/ibm-holds-on-to-title-for-winning-patents-1176826.html

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9KLLGRO2.htm

Genes jumping from Bt to Non Bt Crops....

2011-01-06T12:56:00.008+05:30

We have heard of Jumping Genes or what we call as Transposons, which were discovered by Barbara Mc Clintock and she was also awarded Nobel Prize in 1984 for this remarkable discovery. Jumping genes or transposons are the sequences of DNA that can move or transpose themselves to new positions within the genome of a single cell. The mechanism of transposition can be either "copy and paste" or "cut and paste". But now, a recent study reveals the transfer of genes from crop to crop i.e. an inserted bacterial gene gets transferred via pollen and seed dispersal in cotton plants more accurately than previously available methods.
Many consumers are concerned about the possibility of genetic material from transgenic plants mixing with non transgenic plants on near by fields. Producers on the other side, have a strong interest in knowing whether the varieties they are growing are free from unwanted genetic traits.
Uptil now, realistic models are lacking that could help growers and legislators assess and predict gene flow between genetically modified and non genetically modified crops with satisfactory detail. This study conducted by a student at University of Arizona's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is the first of its kind to analyze gene flow of a genetically modified trait at such a comprehensive level. The new approach is likely to improve assessment of the transfer of genes between plants other than cotton as well.
This phenomenon of natural gene tranfer can be useful from the point of view of developing new methods of gene tranfers and subsequently crop improvement but at the same time it can prove to be hazardous from the Biosafety point of view. But, this study will definitely help the Biosafety Regulatory Board to design the improved guidelines.

To read about the research in detail, click the link below:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130171952.htm

The Word is Out: Patenting Plant Breeding Methods

2011-01-03T15:39:00.000+05:30

This post is taken from a post on IPEG blog on European patents. The views presented are by Stephan Dorn, Human Technology Centre (HumTec) RWTH Aachen (Germany).

The EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal rendered its decision on the patentability of breeding methods (see our blog: Patenting Tomatoes and Broccoli) in the cases G 02/07 and G 01/08 making the patentability of breeding methods harder if not impossible.

A brief update on the background of the case. The two patents in suit relate to breeding methods of tomatoes and broccoli. The Broccoli Patent, EP 1069819, was granted in 2002, the Tomato Patent, EP 1211926, in 2000. The method claimed in the broccoli case is about selectively increasing the level of a potentially anti carcinogenic substance in broccoli plants. Relevant genes on the broccoli genome were located by genetic markers. Broccoli lines containing the desired genes are selected by the means of this markers and used in (conventional) plant breeding. A similar method of breeding tomatoes with reduced water content has been applied for patent protection in the Tomato case. The EPO deemed both processes of marker-assisted selection as a technical process and therefore patentable.

Both patents have been opposed by competitors through opposition (remarkably by companies that file these type of patents themselves) before the EPO Boards of Appeal claiming that the selection processes were essentially biological by the means of EPC Art. 53 (b) and therefore excluded from patentability in general. While trying to define what is meant by an “essentially biological process” the boards of appeal found the Biotech Directive Art. 2 (2) as to be self-contradictory in its wording: “On the one hand, only processes which consist entirely of natural phenomena are considered to be essentially biological processes for the production of plants. On the other hand, crossing and selection are given as examples of natural phenomena. This appears to be self-contradictory to some extent since the systematic crossing and selection carried out in traditional plant breeding would not occur in nature without the intervention of man.”

Therefore defining what is meant by an “essentially biological process” in EPC Art. 53 (b) was referred to the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal.

The main question for the Enlarged Board of Appeal to answer was whether the whole breeding process could be coined as to be technical by just adding an additional feature of a technical nature (namely the marker assisted selection). In our earlier blog entry, we have argued, that merely using technical tools in conventional plant breeding could never lead to a technical nature of the whole process. We have compared it to using a microscope for breeding purposes. The Enlarged Board argues similarly, but substantiates this argument much deeper with the historical development of the exception provided by EPC Art. 53 (b). From a historical point of view the exception was introduced to exclude from patentability the kind of plant breeding processes which were conventional methods for the breeding of plant varieties of that time. Certainly the marker assisted selection had not been a conventional method of plant breeding of that time. But that does not matter, because the underlying concept of selecting varieties by identifying their desired genetic traits suitable for the given breeding purposes by using technical tools and other forms of human inventions was already common. The innovation of selection methods does not change that fact, although, to make it abundantly clear, they may perfectly well be patented in themselves apart from the biological process in which they are used.

The decision of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal is to be welcomed. It keeps the spheres of patent protection and plant varieties protection apart in an appropriate way. An overlapping protection (by patent law rather than existing plant breeding laws) would harm the patent system by confusing its application requirements to a thicket which even professionals could hardly disentangle.

NIF & Future Group Tie-up- A way to ahead

2010-12-31T09:56:00.007+05:30

Future Group is among India’s leading business houses and operates some of India’s most popular retail chains like Pantaloons, Big Bazaar, Food Bazaar Central, eZone and Home Town, apart from other businesses.

Future Group announced a tie-up with National Innovation Foundation (NIF) to commercialize grass-root ideas by creating products to be sold at its outlets. This joint initiative is named as 'Khoj Lab' will combine Future Group's consumer insight, marketing and distribution strength with ideas of innovators associated with NIF and is aimed at launching "affordable products".

Future Group has already tested some of prototypes i.e. Mitti Cool Refrigerator and non-stick pan etc, developed by innovators .Future group will be investing to develop products at affordable price by engaging small and medium size enterprises (SMSE) in manufacture process.

Plan of action: In first phase 50 products have been short listed in categories like home appliances, food, healthcare, luggage and kitchen appliances. In the next one year, at least 20-25 such products will available at Big Bazaar outlets. This tie-up is aimed to provide benefit in terms of royalty in range of 3-5% to creator. We wish that this tie-up will provide expected benefit to the owners of Intellectual Property.

Country’s First Intellectual Property Owners’ Forum

2010-12-26T10:58:00.003+05:30

Director General of Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Mr. Samir K. Brahmachari, launched the country’s first “Indian Intellectual Property Owners’ Forum” (IIPOF) in the guest presence of Mr. P. H. Kurian, Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) on 23rd Dec, 2010. The said forum is set up by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), and launched at the first annual convention of Indian IP owners. The forum is set with aim to structure and identify the issues faced by IP owners in the country and prepare action plans and delivery mechanisms. This is first-of-its-kind initiative to help more and more people by powerful advocacy forums. The concept of setting up IP Owners forums/associations exists in other countries also like the “IPO Association” in US. IP Owners’ Associations have been proved to be very successful in countries like US, Korea and Japan, creating IP awareness, innovations and strong enforcement regime. With the introduction of IIPOF, we hope for a similar fruitful effect on innovations, IP creation and development of strong IP regime in India too.

What’s New with Plant Variety Protection in India

2010-12-26T00:26:00.003+05:30

The Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights (PPV&FR) Authority has recently notified registration of new crop – species for registration under the PPV&FR Act, 2001.Central Government issued Gazette notification S. O. 2883(E) dated 2nd December 2010, notifying registration of 11 crops for registration “not being extant varieties and farmers’ varieties”. The crop species notified for registration includes potato, garlic onion, tomato, brinjal, cabbage, cauliflower, lady’s finger, mango, rose and chrysanthemum.

The notification clearly states that the Authority will not accept applications filed as Extant variety or Farmers’ variety. This leaves many questions on part of the applicants. Why has the Authority acted discriminately against the farmers and public sector? We all are aware that most of the extant varieties developed for all crop species belong to the public sector. Is the Authority encouraging applicants to file the existing varieties under New Variety category? My answer would be yes. To explain my views I would like the readers to first get acquainted with Rule 22 (4) under the PPV&FR Act, which states that “the Authority shall compile and maintain a database on all varieties of common knowledge including all registered extant and farmers’ varieties and such varieties being cultivated outside India for each crop species prior to grant for registration for new varieties belonging to such species”. On one hand the Authority is adopting a sluggish approach in data compilation and maintenance; and on another it has taken a step contrary to Rule 22 (4) and opened registration of “New Varieties” prior to registering all existing varieties.

During designing the Act equal importance was given to New and existing varieties (including the varieties developed by Farmers’) maintaining balance of rights and the Act was also named as “Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act”, but during the enactment, Authority has forgotten this balance of rights and is now working contrary to the statute. How will our Plant Variety Protection Act of India shape up in future is now a big question mark? A lot of thinking and deliberation is required to be taken by the Authority before making such decisions. Let’s hope that the Authority realizes its mistakes and makes suitable amendments in its working.

Why are Gene patents being treated like a Pandora Box?

2010-12-24T13:20:00.002+05:30

We all are aware of the fact that role of genes is to code for proteins which are directly or indirectly responsible for all body activities of all living organisms. But as far as IP regimes all round the world are concerned it’s the gene patents which are being compared to a modern Pandora box. Astonishingly, proteins that are encoded by these genes do not seem to attract enough controversy in any economy.

Why would only genes be a problem for patent community and not proteins though both are products of nature and chemical entities? Also, why has this issue gained momentum now when we already have many gene sequence patents that have already completed their tenure and expired? I wish to explore these issues and current criticisms with the way of this article which is first in the series of articles which I will be posting on detailed analysis of gene patents in EU and US regimes through landmark decisions.

One basic difference that came into picture on comparing genes and proteins is that genes are little more than naked information and at present little goes beyond that. This clashes with the very jurisprudence of patenting which explicitly mentions the utility requirement. Also, a majority of debate over gene patenting has been at an anecdotal level or on a general platform, which makes the situation more complicated than it actually is. This is because concerns at this level are not very adequately analyzed.

Also, when biotechnology directive became a law in late 1990’s the regulations and laws surrounding gene patents became more stringent. This is one of the reasons of gene patents issue gaining weight these days as the applicants have to operate within a tighter legal regime. Also, the amount of information which would constitute prior art have also increased exponentially in last decade which has further complicated the issue. We also have to consider the fact that the first generation of gene patents is coming to an expiry level and most of the low hanging fruits have been already taken like gene encoding the proteins for known therapeutic value. As the technological advancement has been on a very fast pace in last 10 years the scope and spectrum of gene patents has also widened beyond the initial scope defined by traditional laws. An appropriate example will be that of SNP identification and identifying differences in different sequences.

All these factors are major contributors towards debate of gene patents, though this series of articles will focus on other issues and famous case studies of this field which would further throw light upon the issue.

IP Audits: Old McDonald has a new farm

2010-12-23T11:32:00.002+05:30

I am sure the heading rings a familiar bell in your mind as we all grew up listening to this famous song. But, I am sure all must be wondering what it has got to do with IP Audits which sounds like a technical term and not lyrics of some song.

Well, what I mean here is that in this era, where glamour has also become an innovation-packaging matters. IP Audits is a terms that we keep hearing quite often these days but it’s not at all a new concept and has been there since long. But the form and the terms used to define the process of IP Audits were different. Nowadays it is serving as a preliminary foundation for management of all intangible assets including IP. This is precisely the reason I compared it to old McDonald’s new farm. The assets are still the same, the management tactics are still as dynamic as ever but the now everything is based upon a foundation of a preliminary IP audit. IP Audits around the world are driven by a single motto “If you don’t know it, you can’t handle it”.

My point of weaving the entire story is to point to the fact that IP management is not just handling few IP’s now. It is in fact a very broad spectrum area of research whose horizons have just begun to be explored, and this field offers limitless potential for innovation in itself. In other words management of Innovation has lot of scope for innovation in itself. This statement is enough to imply that scope of innovation cannot be bound by a few words and that it has now become a phenomenon from a process. The wave of IP as a career started about a decade ago and gained momentum in last 3-4 years, but what started as a legal field with technical skill set requirement and gradually moved onto core technical skills with some legal knowledge requirement has now reached its pinnacle with lot of strategic skill requirement with some knowledge of law and technology domains.

Not so long ago was a time wherein latest patent applications were an indicator of the level of knowledge in the respective technology domain, but now they are more perceived as stocks with a possibility of future trading. Even scientific community has started viewing them as future cash-flow statements. This change in attitude set the ball rolling for churning out supporting laws which are in place in some countries and in process in some others. Now another change can be foreseen and this would be recognition of IP management as a separate discipline of management.

This has given rise to the process of IP audits as well, where all intangible IP assets are checked from various angles so that managers can be provided with all the information that can used to generate all required knowledge which in turn can be used for fulfilling various goals and objectives of IP management.

In case you are wondering why this article was devoid of absolutely any kind of technical knowledge then I guess there is an apology due from my side. In this article I tried to explain my perspective of the whole scenario and how I constantly get amazed by the quantity of food for thought this field has to offer. I might not be familiar with all tides and moods of this ocean but what I can see from standing on this shore is a horizon of limitless possibilities which might offer lot of avenues for masters of the seas.

Backlog clearance drive

2010-12-17T16:52:00.006+05:30

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) office has issued a public notice dated 07-12-2010, informing that the patent office has decided to dispose of all the pending patent applications. In response to the public notice issued dated 16-07-2010, the Patent Office received 3749 applications. All these pending 3749 applications will be disposed during a period of about four months starting from December 2010 to March 2011. Mr. P.H.Kurian (Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks) has requested the applicants/agents to respond to the public notice and send the list of pending cases before 20-12-2010. This is yet another initiative taken by the CGPDTM, towards excellence. Presently, there are only 150 examiners who will dispose of the present backlogs and will further join hands with the new batch of 257 patent examiners, who are likely to join their duties by April-May, 2011. We hope to see as expedite process of disposal of the patent applications with coming New Year “2011”.

Reconstitution of Extant Variety Recommendation Committee (EVRC)

2010-12-08T12:34:00.002+05:30

The Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Right Authority had constituted the Extant Variety Recommendation Committee (EVRC) under Section 15 (2) of PPV & FR Act, 2001 read with Regulation 6 of PPV & FR Regulations, 2006, which was published in PVJ Vol. 4, No.7, July, 2010 (here).

In continuation to this, an office notice has been issued in the Plant Variety Journal (here) of December, 2010, about the reconstitution of Extant Variety Recommendation Committee (EVRC). The reconstitution of the Committee is as under;

1. Prof.D.P.Ray- Chairman, Vice-Chancellor OUAT, Siripur, Bhubaneswar, Orissa -751 003.

2. Dr.S.K.Sharma –Member, Vice-Chancellor CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Palmpur (H.P.) – 176 002.( Earlier ,Dr. Sharma was the Director of NBPGR, IARI,New Delhi-110012).

3. Dr.S.Acharya- Member, Research Scientist, Main Pulses Research Station SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat – 385506.

4. Dr. A.K.Singh –Member, Rice Breeder, Genetics Division, IARI, New Delhi-110012.

5. Sh. G.Murlidhara- (Farmer’s Representative)-Member, Member Tamilnadu Kissan Sangh ,Arayapuram, Malliyam Post, Mailaduthurai ,Taluk, Nagapattinam, District (T.N.) – 609 806.

6. Dr. S.K. Tripathi- (Seed Industry Representative)- Member ,Vice President, (Vegetable Business Unit) ,Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001.

7. Dr. Manoj Srivastava Member, Secretary, Registrar, PPV&FR Authority, New Delhi – 110 012.

Purpose of EVRC: EVRC shall be examining the suitability for registration of extant varieties which have been notified under section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966) .On the basis of the recommendations of the EVRC, the said variety shall be registered as per the provisions of the section 28 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.

Members of EVRC: The EVRC is comprised of seven person including one Farmers’ Representative and one Seed Industry Representative and other subject matter specialists nominated by the Authority.

Tenure of EVRC: The EVRC shall have three years tenure w.e.f 8^th june,2010 , So tenure of the EVRC is till 8^th june,2013.

Meetings of EVRC: The EVRC shall meet periodically at the HQ of the Authority.

Registrar in EVRC: The Registrar of the Authority shall be the Ex-officio Member Secretary of the Committee. As Sh. R.K. Trivedi (Ex- Registrar) has been relieved w.e.f. 12.11.2010, In place of him Dr.Manoj Srivatava is names as the Ex-officio Member Secretary of the Committee.

This committee is mandated to develop appropriate procedures and examine the EV applications that fall under the Seeds Act, 1966 and recommend to the Authority the suitability of the material for registration. According to the information publishes on the authority website, 136 varieties had sent for EVRC recommendation and EVRC has recommended 129 varieties, remaining 7 varieties are not recommended for registration. Detail can be seen here.

If further clarification is required then please contact;

Onkar Singh,

Onkarsingh.naarm@gmail.com

Cell No.09573602808

Dr.P.L.Gautam, newly appointed Chairperson of PPV&FR Authority

2010-12-08T12:00:00.004+05:30

Our readers might know that Dr. S. Nagarajan was appointed as first Hon’ble Chairperson of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA). The Hon’ble Chairperson was appointed to fulfill the mandate of established authority under the PPV&FR Act, 2001.He has given momentum to the registration and various processes related to plant variety protection in India. Under the valuable guidance of Hon’ble Chairperson, Authority has organized various National Consultative seminars (here), Advocacy program, Workshop, Review meetings (here). In his tenure the registration process started and certificates were rewarded to the respective person or organizations for many crops. It is evidently clear that his tenure was very successful and India’s Plant Variety Protection regime received a good initiation.

As earlier (here), Government of India (GOI) invited applications for the post of Chairperson of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA), New Delhi. We have posted earlier (here) about the notification, manner of selection, tenure and role of Chairperson.

We are glad to inform you that one of the eminent scientist, Dr. P. L. Gautam (profile here) has been appointed as new Chairperson of the Authority.

He has provided his services as (i) Chairman of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India since December 31, 2008.(ii) Deputy Director General of Crop Science Division of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) (iii) Vice- Chancellor, GBPU&AT, Pantnagar (iv) Director, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, ICAR). He has hold various other responsible position and extended his expertise support.

We are still waiting to receive the official notice in Plant Variety Journal (PVJ). But, the authority has updated the name of Dr. P. L. Gautam as Chairperson in its website (here). Subsequently, NBA has issued fresh notification (here) to fill the position vacated by Dr. P. L. Gautam.

We hope that more transparency will come in various procedures being followed before the Authority and by the authority. Plant Variety Protection will facilitate the growth of seed industry in the country which will ensure the availability of high quality seeds and planting material to farmers. We wish his tenure will extend support to Indian farmer, private and public seed sector.

For any clarification, if required then please contact to;
Onkar Singh,
onkarsingh.naarm@gmail.com
9573602808

Summary of Plant Variety Journal – December, 2010

2010-12-07T12:42:00.007+05:30

Plant variety journal of December, 2010 (here) has been published byProtection of Plant Variety & farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA). There are two notices have been issued (i)Reconstitution of EVRC under regulation 6 of PPV&FR Regulations (ii)Registrations certificates for 49 varieties have been issued on 20.10.2010 under section 25 of the PPV & FR Act, 2001. Total number of applications published in above said Plant Variety Journal are four only. All the four varieties are owned by private sectors i.e. Krishidhan Seeds Ltd, Nirmal Seeds Pvt Ltd). For our readers I would like to provide simplified information under the following categories:

Applicants for published application –

(A) From Private sector,

(i) Krishidhan Seeds Limited is the applicant for two applications, for Cotton(1) & Maize(1).

(ii) Nirmal Seeds Private Limited is the applicant for two applications, for Green Gram variety.

(B) From Public Sector- No Application.

Variety Category: Categorized as per provisions of PPV&FR Act, 2001(Sec.15)

(i) Extant variety of Common Knowledge (Application – 1), which is owned by Nirmal Seeds Private Limited

(ii)New variety (Applications - 3), out of which two are owned by Nirmal Seeds Private Limited and one by Krishidhan Seeds Limited .

Crop Wise:

(i) Green Gram -(2)

(ii) Cotton- (1)

(iii) Maize- (1)

Procedure is open to Public: Now it’s time for interested parties to oppose the advertisements within three months from the date of advertisement of the application(s) by giving notice of opposition (Form PV-3 of the First Schedule of PPV&FR Rules, 2003). Oppositions, can be made in prescribed format (triplicate) accompanied with the fee of Rs.1,500/- by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of “The Registrar, PPV & FR Authority” payable at New Delhi.

There is an increasing trend of applications being received by the Authority / Registry under various varietal categories. Now, it is the time for the Registry to show its efficiency in processing these applications at the earliest. We hope that with the change in the Authorities membership setup there would be a change in the publication trends too.

For any clarification, if required then please contact to;

Onkar Singh,

onkarsingh.naarm@gmail.com

9573602808

In Defense of Patenting of Gene

2010-11-25T10:18:00.002+05:30

With voices raging hard against patenting of gene in United States, Boston Editorial Globe is acknowledging the importance of gene patents to biotechnology.

Gene patenting is one of the most obvious controversial subject and over the past three decades, much of the ink has been spilt about the ethical issues related to it, in particular with regard to the issue of

patenting DNA sequences isolated from the human genome.

The issue of gene patenting gained limelight when a Utah based diagnostic firm, Myriad genetics was granted a patent on two breast cancer related genes BRCA1 & BRCA2. Myriad having the patent right is the sole provider of these tests related to the genes in United States while blocking other laboratories from offering tests based on those genes. The patents created much controversy and were soon brought in the court of justice. In the recent judgement, as mentioned in editorial US District Court Judge Robert Sweet sided with the plaintiffs by ruling that Myriad’s claims over “isolated’’ BRCA genes are invalid because the genes are “not markedly different’’ from DNA that exists in nature, and phenomena of nature are not patentable. The judgment is itself questioning the novelty criteria defined by Patent laws, which states that genes “isolated and purified” creates requisite novelty.

Having said this, there is still of course need to address, the very legitimate, and clearly urgent, question of whether gene patents serve the larger goal of advancing medical research and promoting the creation of therapies. Intellectual property has been expanding with the advancement of science & technology, and there is an utter need to devise new rules through the panel of experts; rather than developing new system in courtrooms.

When the human genome was mapped it was thought that it will revolutionize the treatment of incurable disease. What they didn’t expect that it genes would also be patented like the as inventions. Gene patenting has been under attack for several years. Inventions do not move from the laboratory to the marketplace without a huge investment of money, time, and effort.

Perhaps there is need to address this issue by the congress, with discussing the pros and cons of allowing these kinds of patents to remain valid and continue to be granted, as whole future of modern biotechnology industry is dependent on it.

Agri Biotech "3rd largest in Biotech Sector"

2010-11-19T10:19:00.007+05:30

Agri biotech secures 3rd largest position in the Biotechnology sector in terms of total revenues. After the huge success of Bt cotton, covering more than 80% of the total cotton area, agri biotech has attained this position. As per the report of United States Department of Agriculture, Agri biotech sector has achieved the total revenues of 1,940 Crores in the fiscal year 2009-2010 which is a 37% growth over the previous fiscal. Whereas, export revenue from agricultural biotechnology is estimated at Rs. 58 Crores in the last fiscal year. The adoption of Bt Cotton is supposed to be the reason for development of Agri Biotech into one of the fastest growing segments of the Indian Biotech Industry. This will also encourage Seed Firms to invest on Research and Development on the Agri Biotech segment.

Source: Gubba Seed News (Vol-23 September- October 2010)

IP: Innovative Tool for Gaining Publicity

2010-11-10T11:11:00.012+05:30

Every now and then we get to know that upcoming movie has been a case of IP controversy. I always wonder, why the launch of the new movie is never delayed or obstructed because of this. All of them release well on time and most of the times get huge success, as it is evident in case of 3 Idiots and Dabang. Now, recently Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s, Hritik and Aishwarya starrer “Guzarish” has come into picture for infringing the Copyrights of Dayanand Raajans, whose novel’s theme and characters are supposed to be lifted for the movie. Just before the release or on the release of a movie such controversies pop up and we keep on following the news that what will happen now? But, after few days for almost all the cases there is never an interesting conclusion, they simply opt for out of court settlement (Zandu balm Case against Arbaz Khan). In this case it has been reported that the sales of Zandu Balm got a reasonably good hike after this controversy, which they can never achieve through traditional marketing strategies and the movie “Dabang” plus the song “Munni Badnam” got a good popularity as well.

I get puzzled sometimes that all these disputes are fashioned just for publicity or people are really concerned for protecting their Intellectual Property. Whatever the reason may be, keeping aside the publicity stunts, I am delighted because it is creating awareness about the IP issues amongst the common man. Thanks to media that despite highlighting all the time “Breaking News on Rakhi Sawant”, they sometimes bring these critical issues into notice and people are now becoming more educated on how to protect their intellectual assets.

A battle for ownership of word “Kamdhenu”

2010-11-01T16:32:00.003+05:30

In Hindu mythology, Kamdhenu means a sacred cow that grants all wishes and desires. She is associated with plenty, even unending supply of goods, particularly food. Kamdhenu emerged from Samudramanthan (the churning of the ocean) and was taken by seven gods. Kamdhenu is a divine cow who is believed to be the mother of all cows. Like her daughter Nandini, she could grant any wish for the true seeker. Kamdhenu provided Vasishta with his needs for the sacrifices. So in that Yug rishiVasishta was the owner of Kamdhenu.

But in Kalyug, disputes aroused in Capital of India before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi regarding the ownership of the word “Kamdhenu”. We are presenting the issue, facts and the decision of the Court as follow..

M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Limited (plaintiff) is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its main business is to manufacture and market Steel Bars and other cognate products. It has also expanded into other businesses such as Cement, POP, construction, etc.

M/s Kamadhenu Pickles and Spices (Defendant) is a company under the Partnership Act. Its main business is manufacture and retail sales of pickles, spices, jellies, juices, sauces, and processing articles and condiments used for the preparation of those goods.

The plaintiff has claimed the registered proprietor of a well-known mark “KAMADHENU” in respect of steel bars (or sariyas), promoted and advertised, under the Trademark Act. Plaintiff sought for permanent injunction & other relief, alleging infringement and passing- off, of their trademark "KAMADHENU" by the defendant.

Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate and defendant was represented by Mr.Sh. S.P. Vijayaragavan, Advocate in High Court of Delhi. The decision was pronounced by Hon’ble Justice, S.Ravindra Bhat on 18.10.2010 (Decision here).We are presenting the case in brief as follows…

Plaintiff points;

1. The plaintiff submitted that Delhi High Court has jurisdiction since the plaintiff office operates in Delhi and its goods are extensively sold here.

2. The plaintiff claims being the registered proprietor of a well-known mark (falling within the definition under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999)(hereafter called "the Act"). Since the mark has been used extensively for over a considerable period of time, and is almost a household mark, in respect of steel bars (or sariyas), promoted and advertised, their products widely under the said mark through advertisement media.

3. It is submitted that though the mark is used in connection with steel bars, and cement, etc, its reputation in India has acquired such a degree of distinctiveness and fame, that use of KAMADHENU by any other trader, in respect of diverse goods, would tarnish its (the plaintiff's) reputation and injure its reputation.

4. The plaintiffs' contented that “KAMADHENU” is not descriptive, but arbitrary, and by long usage, it has not only acquired secondary significance, but has become a well known mark in respect of its goods and products.

5. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant despite being aware fame and reputation in respect of the mark "KAMADHENU" is engaged in the manufacture and export of bed sheets, quilts and pillow covers in various specifications by using of such mark is in bad faith & deriving benefits from the plaintiffs' trademark.

Evidences produced by plaintiff:

(i)Copies of trademark certificates, with effect from 1996, 1999, 2004 and 2005

(ii) Bills and invoices towards sale of its products, commencing from 1998 till the date of filing the suit

(iii)Copies of its annual reports for various years from 1996 to 2006 and for subsequent years, when it had increased considerably.

The defendants submitted that;

1. It has no intention of deriving benefits from the plaintiffs' trade name, and it has been using “KAMADHENU” ever since 1969.

2. The goods and products sold or marketed by them all these years has no remote connection with the plaintiff's main business or the products sold or marketed by it under the KAMADHENU mark.

Evidence Produced by defendant;

(i)Copies of the registration and approval certificates, which show the use of “KAMADHENU” as trademark, since 1995. They have been using that term as trademark, and trading or corporate name, since 1986.

(ii)The registration of the company, and its certificate of incorporation and other such documents are relied upon for this purpose.

Points on which decision relies;

The materials on record show that the plaintiff has been using the “KAMADHENU” mark for a considerably long period in relation to steel bars and it has acquired a secondary significance to identify itself with the plaintiff. To that extent, the plaintiffs' claim is correct.

The meaning of Kamadhenu in Hindu mythology is a “sacred cow that grants all wishes and desires”. She is associated with plenty, even unending supply of goods, particularly food. Kamadhenu emerged from Samudramanthan (the churning of the ocean) and was taken by seven gods. She is also known as the mother of all cows. As “KAMADHENU” is a dictionary word therefore the principle of common to trade is applicable in this situation.

There is no doubt that KAMADHENU is not a descriptive word, in respect of the goods or services offered by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has been unable to show from the record any evidence that whether

(i) It is engaged in any textile goods manufacture ( i.e. bed and table covers) or

(ii) Its use of the KAMADHENU mark in relation to pickles or such packaged foods the kind, which is the only commercial activity of the defendant.

Hon’ble justice S.Ravindra Bhat, Delhi High Court, is of the opinion that the use of “KAMADHENU” as a corporate name by the defendant, notwithstanding the plaintiff's registration of the word mark, cannot ipso facto confer exclusivity. The plaintiffs should use it in relation to specific goods such as pickles and condiments etc (by the defendants) then only there would be any justification for granting relief. Trademark law does not imply formalistic or ritualistic application of abstract principles.

As far as the claim for dilution, a species of infringement under Section 29 (4) is concerned, the trademark owner has to show four distinct elements as follows;

(1) The impugned mark is identical or similar to the senior mark;

(2) The senior or injured mark has a reputation in India;

(3) The use of the impugned mark is without due cause;

(4) The use of the impugned mark (amounts to) taking unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark.

The plaintiff's reputation in its mark may at best be said to contain an association with steel and allied goods, even in somewhat related fields such as cement. However there is nothing suggestive that such association extends to pickles and such like packaged products manufactured and sold by the defendants. This aspect is crucial, because the plaintiff does not deny that it is not selling competing goods.

The class of users of the plaintiff’s goods is not the kind who would associate the defendant's mark as those of the plaintiff's. Taking into consideration all these factors and the materials on record, the court is satisfied that there is no linkage between the defendant's mark and the plaintiffs' products, so as to cause detriment to the latter and undue advantage to the former.

For the above reasons, the plaintiff has not been able establish the case for either infringement by dilution or of the corporate name, by the defendant; the suit itself does not disclose any cause of action, for any of the reliefs claimed. The suit and pending applications were rejected in the above circumstances.

Managing Ownership Issues of IP Assets

2010-10-29T16:51:00.007+05:30

Dear Friends,
As we all are working in different domains of the IP Industry. We should be aware of the ownership issues that may pop us in front of us. I found this presentation relevant and worth sharing with you all. I hope you will like it. Please follow the link enclosed with the title.

Off shoring IP Services: India to be the first choice...

2010-10-15T14:50:00.010+05:30

Outsourcing is now a days serving as a cost saving and effective strategy to almost all the industries being it Call Centre Industry, Legal Service Industry, Research and Analysis Industry, Health care, Banking and Financial Industry, Software and IT Industry, Data and Document Management Industry.
The recent studies reveals that as compared to other industries Legal Service Industry has gained a very high momentum. Amongst legal outsourcing, IP has gained utmost attention. India has always been valued for the talent pool and now being recognized by the Developed Countries as the hub for rendering IP and research services.
Trends reveal that total revenue generation from patent off shoring industry were about $ 46 million dollars for the year 2007 and is expected to reach to a level of $ 206 million by the year 2012. This data shows a multi folds rise in the revenue generation. This concept is considered to be at a very rudimentary stage in India and is only 3-4 years old. By end of the year 2007, there were only around 50 companies providing these services with the head count of around 1,550. The Indian IP off shoring industry is expected to rise by 35% for the next 4 years.
There is a huge potential for Indian investors to develop such capabilities and capture the market from all over the world, subsequently India can rise as a "Superpower" in the field of IP. Also, there are immense opportunities for the IP professionals like us to flourish.