<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font size="-1">i know that someone asked about viable alternative
to patents a while ago. this is more about section 3(d) of indian
industrial property act.<br>
<br>
so, the madras high court decision (appended below) <br>
</font><br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject: </th>
<td>[SPICY IP] Summary of 3(d) and 3(e) decisions in 2010 at
the IPDTO</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Tue, 8 Mar 2011 20:38:13 -0800 (PST)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Rajiv Kr. Choudhry <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rajiv.choudhry@gmail.com"><rajiv.choudhry@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Reply-To:
</th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rajiv.choudhry@gmail.com">rajiv.choudhry@gmail.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spicyip@googlegroups.com">spicyip@googlegroups.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-2T7PRl4TM5E/TXYY_9iwzsI/AAAAAAAAcWc/lFUR_Jl_-E4/s1600/data-analysis.jpg"
imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left;
margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-2T7PRl4TM5E/TXYY_9iwzsI/AAAAAAAAcWc/lFUR_Jl_-E4/s200/data-analysis.jpg"
height="195" width="200" border="0"></a></div>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-2T7PRl4TM5E/TXYY_9iwzsI/AAAAAAAAcWc/lFUR_Jl_-E4/s1600/data-analysis.jpg"
imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom:
1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"></span></a><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:
Verdana,sans-serif;">In a previous <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://goo.gl/65hmD">post</a>, we saw the break-up of
decisions at the Indian Patents, Designs and Trademark Office
(IPDTO) in the calendar year 2010. Because of the importance of
sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Indian patent act, this post
analyzes decisions related to sections 3(d) and 3(e) in the
calendar year 2010. The complete file containing the decisions
analyzed can be seen <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://goo.gl/RxTTf">here</a>. </span><br>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:
Verdana,sans-serif;"><b>We were not surprised to see that in 12
out of the 21 possible cases, the Controller refused the grant
of the application.</b> Only seven applications were allowed
and two were partially allowed. </span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:
Verdana,sans-serif;">However, what was surprising was that five
out of the seven applications that were allowed, were from the
Delhi patent office!! We leave the judgment whether the Delhi
patent office is more generous in allowing applications - than
the other patent offices to our readers!! </span><br>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:
Verdana,sans-serif;">The other thing where we were not surprised
was that <b>none of the decisions relating to 3(d) even
attempted to co-relate therapeutic efficacy</b> and define a
factual benchmark for the claims under consideration. Another
instance where we were not surprised was the lack of consistency
in the Controller's decisions. As an example, there are cases
where Controller cited a medical dictionary to define efficacy,
others used the Madras High Court decision, some other decisions
did not refer to efficacy but stressed on the absence of
comparative data. We have highlighted the key portions of all
decisions in the analysis, available <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://goo.gl/RxTTf">here</a>.</span></div>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Posted By Rajiv Kr. Choudhry to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2011/03/summary-of-3d-and-3e-decisions-in-2010.html">SPICY
IP</a> at 3/09/2011 10:08:00 AM
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SPICY IP" group.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spicyip@googlegroups.com">spicyip@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spicyip+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">spicyip+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit this group at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://groups.google.com/group/spicyip?hl=en">http://groups.google.com/group/spicyip?hl=en</a>.<br>
<br>
==================<br>
I found this essay quite helpful:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086254">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086254</a><br>
<br>
Mostly because there appears to be grounds on which to question the
"legality" of section 3(d) with regards to the TRIPS agreement. This
is undoubtedly so. Now, the European Union, for instance, has been
very eager to include patents in the ACTA negotiation. This strategy
failed, but the US and the EU have agreed on trademark infringements
being an important part of the agreement, and given the curret modus
operandi of customs authorities in the Union trademarks and ACTA
should be a big concern for Europeans, Indians. I seem to recall
SpicyIP having brought this up but I cannot for the life of me find
the relevant blog posts (someone else with better googling skills?)<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>