#intellectual property appellate board (IPAB)

[biatlegal]

Insight into Trademark Hearings in India: Understanding the Process and Procedure

Trademark registration is an essential part of establishing and protecting a brand in India. Once a trademark is registered, it gives the owner the exclusive right to use it and prevent others from using it without permission. However, in some cases, disputes may arise over the ownership or use of a trademark. In such situations, a trademark hearing is conducted in India to resolve the dispute.

What is a Trademark Hearing?

A trademark hearing in India is a legal proceeding conducted by the Registrar of Trademarks to resolve disputes between two parties regarding the ownership or use of a trademark. The hearing process provides a forum for both parties to present their case, evidence, and arguments before a neutral authority. The Registrar of Trademarks will then make a decision based on the evidence and arguments presented. Trademark hearings in India are governed by the Trademarks Act, of 1999, and the procedure for conducting a hearing is outlined in the Act.

Benefits of Trademark Hearing 

Trademark hearing in India provides several benefits, including: 

Resolving Disputes

Protection of Intellectual Property

Preventing Confusion

Promoting Fair Competition

Avoiding Litigation

Reasons for a Trademark Hearing

There are various reasons why a trademark hearing may be held in India. Among the most popular explanations are:

Opposition Proceedings: If someone opposes a trademark application during the registration process, a hearing may be held to determine if the opposition is valid or not.

Cancellation Proceedings: If a trademark has already been registered, it can still be canceled if it was registered improperly or if the owner has not used it for a long period. A hearing may be held to determine if the cancellation is valid or not.

Infringement Proceedings: If someone uses a registered trademark without permission, the owner of the trademark can file a complaint for trademark infringement. A hearing may be held to determine if the infringement has occurred and what remedies are available to the trademark owner.

Procedure for a Trademark Hearing

The procedure of trademark hearing in India is governed by the Trademarks Act, of 1999. The steps involved in a trademark hearing process are:

Filing the Notice of Opposition or Cancellation: The party who opposes a trademark application or wants to cancel a registered trademark must file a notice of opposition or cancellation with the Registrar of Trademarks.

Response to Notice: The party who receives the notice of opposition or cancellation must respond within a specified period. If no response is received, the trademark application or registration may be deemed abandoned.

Hearing: Once the parties have filed their pleadings, evidence, and arguments, the Registrar of Trademarks will schedule a hearing. Both parties will be allowed to present their case during the hearing.

Decision: The Registrar of Trademarks will issue a decision after the hearing based on the evidence and arguments presented. The decision may be appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) within a specified period.

Importance of trademark hearing

Trademark hearings in India play an important role in protecting the rights of trademark owners and preventing the unauthorized use of their trademarks. The importance of trademark hearings can be explained as follows:

Resolving Disputes: A trademark hearing provides a legal platform for resolving disputes between two parties regarding the ownership or use of a trademark. It helps to prevent conflicts from escalating and provides an opportunity for both parties to present their case and evidence before a neutral authority.

Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Trademarks are a valuable form of intellectual property, and trademark hearings are an important mechanism for protecting those rights. The hearing process ensures that registered trademark owners can prevent others from using their trademark without permission and allows for the cancellation of improperly registered trademarks.

Preventing Infringement: Trademark hearings can help prevent trademark infringement by allowing registered trademark owners to file a complaint against those who use their trademark without permission. The hearing process provides an opportunity to seek legal remedies, including injunctions and damages.

Maintaining Consumer Confidence: Trademark hearings help maintain consumer confidence in the marketplace by ensuring that trademarks are used appropriately and that consumers can identify the source of the products and services they purchase. This helps to prevent confusion and deception in the marketplace.

Ensuring Fair Competition: Trademark hearings also promote fair competition by preventing competitors from using similar trademarks that may confuse consumers. This helps to ensure a level playing field for businesses in the marketplace.

Conclusion

A trademark hearing in India is a crucial part of the trademark registration process. It provides a platform for resolving disputes over trademark ownership or use. If you are involved in a trademark dispute, it is advisable to consult a trademark lawyer who can guide you through the process and represent you during the hearing.

[theindiasagaa]

Budget 2023 | Focus of DPIIT on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

With a steady focus on development and awareness for Intellectual Property (Trademark, Copyright, Design and Patents), FM Nirmala Sitharaman has more than doubled allocation in the revised Budget for FY 2022–23 for IPR Policy Management and Infrastructure Development.

The overall budget allocation for FY 2023–24 for Intellectual Property has been increased by 42% YoY (INR 328.981 crore from INR 231.73 crores) while this increase is 15% when compared to revised budget for FY 2022–23.

According to the Budget documents, the budgetary allocation for Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks has been increased to INR 281.60 crore from INR 232.65 crore. Similarly, enhanced funds have been allocated to strengthen the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).

The government is clearly strengthening IPR by creating awareness, modernizing the IP offices, streamlining compliances, facilitating IP filing and using state of the art technology for management and monitoring.

There has been a staggering 46% growth in the domestic filing of patents over 2016–2021 and further in 2022, India’s entry in World’ Top 3 in terms of Trademark filing — signaling India’s transition towards a knowledge-based economy.

With the awareness efforts from DPIIT and substantial increase in entrepreneurship/ start-up culture in India, Intellectual Property is set to be meaningful and worthy asset of business houses in India.

[nuraminseo]

Appellate Lawyers Office in Chennai 24×7 | Best Advocates

Appellate Lawyers Office has an extensive litigation practice, acting for domestic and international companies. The firm's seasoned team is known for its expertise in handling high-stakes commercial disputes.

The Senior Attorneys in this Law Firm practice Law in Supreme Court of India, NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal), High Courts, NGT (National Green Tribunal), NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board), Electricity Appellate Tribunal. SART (Securities Appellate Tribunal), ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal), Arbitration Tribunals, DRAT (Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal) Competition Appellate Tribunal,

Appellate Lawyers Office has over 2 decades of experience in handling a wide variety of corporate disputes. Its founding partners are senior litigators who utilities his vast knowledge of litigation to leverage his clients' interests. They are also well-known for his work representing government bodies.

OUR LAW FIRM ADDRESS: Appellate Lawyers Office Head Office: 8/13, Bharathi Salai, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037 Tamil Nadu – India High Court Office: Old#156, New#323, Chamber#14, Andhra Insurance Building, Thambu Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai 600001

Contact Us: Website: www.legalfirm.in/ Phone: +91-9444014096 Landline: +91-44-26533389

Consultation Hours Week Days: 5.30 pm – 8.00 pm Saturday: 10.00 am – 4.00 pm Sunday: Special Appointments only

[kashishipr]

Behind the establishment of the IPAB

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter, the IPAB) was brought into being through a gazetted notification of the Central Government by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 15th September 2003 to hear appeals against the decisions of the Registrar under the IPR laws, namely, The Trade Marks Act, 1999 and The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

The IPAB was established to accelerate the process of dispute resolution of matters pertaining to the specialized field of Intellectual Property (IP) by unburdening the High Courts and imposing an unbending timeline of three months to admit matters in appeal.

Disputes emanating from IP were being adjudicated, apparently, in a speedy fashion. However, matters demanding specialized or technical evaluation were an exception to the aforementioned, as was also observed in the case of Novartis AG vs. Controller General of Patents. Unavailability of specialized members and experts and inability to constitute the required forum under the IPAB led to an increase in the pendency of suits, estimated to at least 2626 trademark cases, 617 patent cases, 691 copyright cases, and 01 geographical indication case as of April 2020. However, since the responsibility of filling out vacancies lies at the heart and hands of the government, the backlash faced by the IPAB may seem a little unjustified.

Scrapping of the IPAB

The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021 could not be brought up during the Budget Sessions, 2021, and therefore, the Centre, through the powers vested in it by Article 123 of the Constitution, introduced the Ordinance, which made changes in the Finance Act, 2017. The Finance Act marked the first step of streamlining tribunals in India by merging pre-existent tribunals based on the similarity of work.

Through the promulgation of an Ordinance, namely the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, published in the Gazette of India dated April 4, 2021 (the ‘Ordinance’) – the IPAB was divested of its original and appellate jurisdiction in matters concerning trademarks, patents, copyright, and geographical indications. In addition to the IPAB, it has also annihilated the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. The rationale behind such a drastic modification can be found in the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill tabled before the Legislative Houses, which states that the IPAB, including others, shall be abolished since the same does not substantially ward of the workload of the High Courts, given the above-mentioned statistics. Furthermore, the matters of adjudication do not affect people at large; or the public is not a litigant to such issues.

It is worthy of pointing out that the Government of India sought to rationalize tribunals in the year 2015. The tribunalisation of justice was checked out way before the accomplishment of the objectives, due to which it came into being in the name of benefiting the public, reducing the burden on the public exchequer, and remedying the administrative and infrastructural lagging of these tribunals.

The Ordinance resuming effect from April 4, 2021, states that all appeals against the decisions of the Registrar of Trademarks, the Registrar of Geographical Indications, and the Controller of Patents would now be filed before the concerned High Courts and appeals against the decision of the Registrar of Copyright would be filed before the concerned Commercial Courts, including the Commercial Division of the High Courts. Litigations pending before the IPAB have also been transferred to the respective High Courts and Commercial Courts. It is difficult to contemplate as to how such matters will be adjudicated in the absence of experts or technical, administrative support, especially concerning patents. The Ordinance is also silent on appointing such experts.

Conclusion: The Aftermath

On the brighter side, this can also be contemplated as a cause leading to the reduction of legal costs for the litigants. Due to lesser stratification in the hierarchy of adjudicating bodies, the time spent in dispute redressal of such litigants will also be reduced as there will be no need to challenge the IPAB’s orders by way of Writ Petitions before the concerned High Courts since a direct appeal will now lie before the High Courts.

However, at the offset, the issue of extended timelines and delays due to procedural formalities will remain a harsh and unresolved reality unless specific guidelines are adopted. The already burdened courts will encounter additional poundage. Furthermore, it may invite administrative issues, including arriving at a common ground on various IP-related matters since the order of one High Court is not binding on the other. Such instability may cause hindrance in developing a sound scientific temper as also enshrined in the Constitution.

Since the issue of speedy redressal remains unresolved, and the issue has again circled back to where it started from, it would be interesting to observe whether any improvements or additional measures or guidelines will be adopted to facilitate quick adjudication of disputes requiring specialized knowledge and skill. Only after undergoing the test of time can an assessment be drawn corresponding to whether this was a progressive stance in the right direction or against the National IPR Policy of 2016 intended to proffer speedy liquidation of backlogs. ✅ For more visit: https://www.kashishipr.com/

[corpbiz2]

An Overview of Patent Revocation

The phrase "revocation" refers to the cancellation of a patentee's patent rights. Any person who is interested in having a patent revoked can file a petition, and the Central Government can also do so. In most situations, revocation is brought as a counterclaim in High Court or before the IPAB in response to patent infringement lawsuits (the Intellectual Property Appellate Board). Under section 104, there is a provision for patent revocation.

[patent-and-trademark-lawyer]

Why Trademark Attorneys Are Needed For Filing A Trademark

The need for trademark attorneys for registering trademarks in India is debatable, but if you are going through the process for the first time, an attorney can help you navigate through the complex bureaucratic requirements.

A trademark attorney is an expert in matters relating to trademark laws, designs, and practices. They can provide legal advice and assistance throughout the registration process and help make the process quicker and simpler. The trademark attorney must be registered to practice before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). 

There are certain procedures in the registration process that can get too complicated or frustrating for the layman. A trademark lawyer in India takes care of these duties and oversees the entire process to make sure your application follows all requirements and is eligible. Some of these procedures are:

Filing the application

Searching all India records to identify similar registered trademarks

The trademark office can take about 2 years to grant the application and post it in the trademark journal

In the case an opposition arises claiming ownership of the trademark, the originality of the filed trademark has to be proven in court

Only if the case is won, the trademark is granted by the office

How can an attorney help?

It is not rare that an objection arises against the filed trademark, claiming ownership. In this case, the attorney is the only person qualified to defend the case in court.

Having an attorney is good for the long run as in unforeseen circumstances like the death of the person who filed the trademark, the attorney can act as legal representative of the dead, with the consent of the person’s legal heir.

Even people who have filed trademarks in the past sometimes prefer to go through the process with a lawyer to make sure they follow the steps correctly and follow best practices to hasten the approval period.

[knowledgentiaconsultantia]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIVISION V/S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD

PUBLISHED BY MS. APARNA JAIN, MS. HARINDER NARVAN, MS AASHRIKA AHUJA AND MR. ISHAN BERRY ON 30.07.2021With increasing significance of protecting one’s intellectual property rights as the world prepares to make a speedy transition to a digital economy; the controversial abolition of India’s Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), came as big jolt to entire IP regime in India. As we were just recovering from this shock and bracing ourselves to get accustomed to different model of working, the Delhi High Court announced the creation of an Intellectual Property Division (IPD). This separate division is certainly a response to The Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021 that abolished IPAB. One of the interesting thing is that while not all legal tribunals were in the crosshairs (only those that handle cases “in which the public at large is not a litigant”) the IPAB was targeted and proposed for abolition. The ordinance was promulgated in April, with the IPAB effectively abolished from then. Subsequently, all matters (and appeals) pending before the IPAB under various IP statutes were transferred to the respective High Courts across India including in Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta and Ahmedabad.The Delhi High Court has created a dedicated IP Division (IPD) that will see special IP benches created to hear matters including: IP-related lawsuits, revocation applications, cancellation applications, appeals from the office of Indian IP Office, and all other proceedings that, in the past, would have been managed by the IPAB (under the various IP statutes). While the division has been launched, its own set of rules – ‘the IPD Delhi High Court Rules’ – are in the process of being framed. At Knowledgentia, with dedicated professionals for global IPR Protection, we offer advice relating to entire lifecycle of IPR that covers latest legal developments and protects our clients from unnecessarily getting involved in forum shopping.

According to the press release, this ordinance meant that the approximately 3000 pending IPAB cases concerning appeals from IP offices and revocation matters would be transferred to the Delhi High Court. And this was in addition to the already pending infringement matters, writ petitions, appeals from commercial courts etc. before the court. In order to find a way to deal with such a huge number of IP cases, a two-member committee consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Sanjeev Narula, had been constituted by Justice D.N. Patel. Based on the committee’s recommendations, the IPD has been created. The press release provides that the IPD will also be handling ‘Writ Petitions (Civil), CMM, RFA, FAO relating to Intellectual Property Rights disputes (except those which are required to be dealt with by the Division Bench).’ This move is in line with practices in other countries such as the UK, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, China etc. Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, D.N. Patel, while directing the creation of IPDs, also noted that the bench should be notified by Hon’ble the Chief Justice from time to time and exclusive IPD Benches are also likely to be created for dealing with such matters.

The creation of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) in the High Court of Delhi is a significant step which is in line with global practices in this regard. Such IP Divisions or IP Courts, which exclusively deal with IPR matters, already exist in the UK, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, China etc. The creation of IPD with comprehensive Rules governing IPR matters, is a momentous step taken towards efficient disposal of such matters.

As one of the best corporate international law firm in India, we take great pride in advising our clients regarding all latest uptodate changes with respect to IP Legislations. Some changes are discussed as below :-

Copyright Act, 1957 The Appellate Board under the Copyright Act is now dissolved and the powers of the Board are transferred to the Commercial Court and High Courts. Section 12 defining the powers and procedure of the Appellate Board has been deleted. The Commercial Courts now possess the power to make final calls on whether a work has been published, handle assignment dispute, decide the term of copyright in anonymous and pseudonymous work, grant compulsory and Statutory Licenses, to grant a license to produce and publish translations, to grant a license to reproduce and publish works, to hear disputes with regards to tariff schemes by Copyright Societies and to fix resale share right in original copies of the first author. Furthermore, the High Courts possess the powers to rectify the Register of Copyrights as per Section 50. It also has the power under Section 70 to hear appeals against the orders of the Registrar of Copyrights. As one of the best law firm in India providing expert copyright registration services in India, our clients trust us completely with the choice of appropriate forum for filing and neforcment of copyright.

Patent Act, 1970 Knowledgentia has one of the best patent consultants in India and our clients take great pride in associating with us for our professionalism and expertise in this field. This ordinance has led to the abolishment of the Appellate Board, which possessed the power to hear appeals against decisions of the Controller General of Patents regarding revocation, ratification of patents, etc. The High Court, now is empowered, inter alia, to revoke the patent granted to fraud and to grant a patent to the true and first inventor, to rectify the Register of Patents as per Section 71 by making variations or deletions, to allow an amendment to complete specification, to issues validity certificate of specification.

Trademarks Act, 1999 With the abolishment of the IPAB, the power of appeals against the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks has been transferred to the High Court. The word ‘Tribunal’ or ‘Appellate Board’ is replaced with ‘Registrar or the High Court’ per context. The power conferred to the Registrar of Trademarks and the High Court is: to remove a trademark from the Register and to impose limitations on grounds of non-use, to require an applicant to furnish security, to vary registration and rectify the register, to deal with registration application of certification trademark, to admit evidence in proceedings, among others. Whatever be the changes in existing legal system, at knowledgentia which is the foremost trademark and brand registration firm in India, we are ready to always quickly adapt to any changes and embrace flexibility in our approach at all times.

Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 As, per the Ordinance, the powers of the Appellate Board have been transferred to the Registrar of Geographical Indications and High Courts. The common power possessed by them is to remove from the register due to failure to pay a fee for renewal, to vary registration and rectify the register, and to admit evidence in proceedings. Additionally, the High Courts are possessed with the powers to hear appeals from the decision of the Registrar, to communicate every order of the High Court to the registrar, to stay proceedings when the invalidity of registration is pleaded, to issue a certificate of validity of registration.

Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 Per the Ordinance, the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal set under Section 54 has been abolished. Hence, the power to hear appeals against decisions of Registrar with regards to registration of a variety or a licensee of a variety, or regarding revocation/ modification of compulsory license, etc. are now transferred to High Court. Additionally, the High Court can pass orders as it deems fit.

The abolishment of IPAB amounts to the restoration of the status quo, as prior to the establishment of IPAB, the power to adjudicate was vested with the High Courts. The move is considered a step forward to deal with the pending cases and strengthen the IP protection and enforcement system. However, only time will tell whether the abolishment of the special tribunal will lead to a stronger IP regime by shifting the burden to the High Courts which may lack the technical knowledge and expertise in the field of IPR.

The Delhi High Court has notified new nomenclature in respect of the matters relating to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) coming into force with immediate effect. The office order issued by High Court on 14.07.2021 by the Registrar General states that the existing nomenclature of WP-C will be replaced by WP (C)-IPD. Similarly, Civil Misc. (Main) will now be replaced with Civil Misc. (Main)-IPD for dealing with IPR related matters. Others nomenclature include RFA-IPD, FAO-IPD, CRP-IPD, FAO(OS)-IPD, RFA(OS)-IPD and EFA(OS)-IPD.

[biatlegal]

What is the Importance of “Statement of Working” for the Patenting system in India?

Before understanding the importance of Statement of working, we need to gather knowledge of the basic terms in relation to the patenting system in India. A patent is an exclusive right given to the inventor for his invention that he has invented. That person is called a patentee, who has to make disclosure in the form of a statement of work to the Indian Patent office regarding the commercial exploitation of a patent in India.

Brief explanation of Statement of Working

The patentee or licensee has to submit a statement of work to the Indian patent office annually stating its commercial use or exploitation in India. It also verifies that whether the patent meets the reasonable requirements of the public besides stating the commercial exploitation of a patent registration. 

I ensure that if the patent did not come into execution for 3 years from the date of grant or reasonable requirement of the public is not met then third parties will be given an opportunity. 

Legal provisions of statement of working

According to section 146(2) and Rule 131 of Indian Patents Act, Statement of working needs to be submitted with the Indian Patent Office (IPO). The act defines Statement of working as, “In India, “Statement of Working '' needs to be filed with the authority on an annual basis. This statement gives disclosure regarding the extent up to which the patent has been worked on the commercial scale. The due date of filing such a statement is 31st March of every calendar year. For this, Form-27 is required to be filed each year within the period of 3 months from the end of the calendar year which can be filed online by the patentee/licensee/ patent agent/ attorney. If the patentee is not in India then the application can be filed by contacting an Indian patent agent/ attorney.”

Following details must be provided along with Form 27 (Statement of Working)-

If the invention is not worked then reason for not working and steps taken

If the inventio is worked then the value of the patent manufactured in India, or the value of the ptnet imported from the other country.

Details of the license and sub license granted.

Whether the public requirement has been met.

Compulsory License

At the time of providing or granting compulsory license, details mentioned in the statement of working are used. IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) takes decisions while granting compulsory licenses. The decision has been taken by IPAB in the case of Bayer Corporation Vs Natco Pharma Ltd.

Penalty Provisions in case of Non-compliance

The legal status of the patent is not affected by the non-filing of the statement of working or filing of the “Not worked '' statement thus it is not deemed as abandoned or cancelled.

However it may attract criminal penalties in case of non filing of working statements or knowingly furnishing incorrect statements. The penalty provisions are described under section 122(1)(b), if the patentee or licensee fails to submit information under section 146, then the fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs may be imposed.

In case wrong information is furnished by the licensee or the patentee then imprisonment for six months may be imposed. According to section 85 of Indian Patent Act, a patent can also be revoked on the ground of not working on a patent invention.

Patent litigation

At the time of infringement suit, working or non-working of of atent is seen as an important factor. As per section 108 of Indian patent act, the patentee can claim for damages and injunction and for an account of profit as relief in case of suits relating to patent infringement. 

The court considers the statement of works in order to estimate the actual damages claimed. 

Publication of statement of working

Statement of working is very important to give in order to give insights regarding the effectiveness of the patenting system in India. Statement of working is available on the website of India patent office. The statement of working is being submitted by the patentee in the preceding year.

 Publication of statements of working helps in patent evaluation and besides this it encourages the science and technology domain development. It also gives business and trade advantages. From the perspective of a business merger or a business takeover, a Statement of Working is also important. On the basis of the information received from the statement of working, resources occupied in research and development may be customized by the industries. We can acquire following information from the working statements:

Commercial viability of Inventions

Compulsory License

Valuation of Patent Portfolios and

Effectiveness of Inventions

Conclusion

According to the Indian patent office it is very important to provide information regarding the working of the patents. Accordingly Form 27 is a mandatory requirement which must be followed by the patentee. In case of violation, strict action must be taken against those. Contact BIAT Legal LLP for your patent registration.

[indialegal]

Supreme Court dismisses petition seeking extension of Intellectual Property Appellate Board Chairman's term

Supreme Court dismisses petition seeking extension of Intellectual Property Appellate Board Chairman’s term

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition filed by “The International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (India Group)” which sought direction to extend tenure of present Chairman of the “Intellectual Property Appellate Board” (IPAB), till the new Chairman is appointed.  The court noted that Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Singh, soon after he demitted office as judge of the Delhi…

[kashishipr]

Behind the establishment of the IPAB

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter, the IPAB) was brought into being through a gazetted notification of the Central Government by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 15th September 2003 to hear appeals against the decisions of the Registrar under the IPR laws, namely, The Trade Marks Act, 1999 and The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

The IPAB was established to accelerate the process of dispute resolution of matters pertaining to the specialized field of Intellectual Property (IP) by unburdening the High Courts and imposing an unbending timeline of three months to admit matters in appeal.

Disputes emanating from IP were being adjudicated, apparently, in a speedy fashion. However, matters demanding specialized or technical evaluation were an exception to the aforementioned, as was also observed in the case of Novartis AG vs. Controller General of Patents. Unavailability of specialized members and experts and inability to constitute the required forum under the IPAB led to an increase in the pendency of suits, estimated to at least 2626 trademark cases, 617 patent cases, 691 copyright cases, and 01 geographical indication case as of April 2020. However, since the responsibility of filling out vacancies lies at the heart and hands of the government, the backlash faced by the IPAB may seem a little unjustified.

Scrapping of the IPAB

The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021 could not be brought up during the Budget Sessions, 2021, and therefore, the Centre, through the powers vested in it by Article 123 of the Constitution, introduced the Ordinance, which made changes in the Finance Act, 2017. The Finance Act marked the first step of streamlining tribunals in India by merging pre-existent tribunals based on the similarity of work.

Through the promulgation of an Ordinance, namely the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, published in the Gazette of India dated April 4, 2021 (the ‘Ordinance’) – the IPAB was divested of its original and appellate jurisdiction in matters concerning trademarks, patents, copyright, and geographical indications. In addition to the IPAB, it has also annihilated the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. The rationale behind such a drastic modification can be found in the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill tabled before the Legislative Houses, which states that the IPAB, including others, shall be abolished since the same does not substantially ward of the workload of the High Courts, given the above-mentioned statistics. Furthermore, the matters of adjudication do not affect people at large; or the public is not a litigant to such issues.

It is worthy of pointing out that the Government of India sought to rationalize tribunals in the year 2015. The tribunalisation of justice was checked out way before the accomplishment of the objectives, due to which it came into being in the name of benefiting the public, reducing the burden on the public exchequer, and remedying the administrative and infrastructural lagging of these tribunals.

The Ordinance resuming effect from April 4, 2021, states that all appeals against the decisions of the Registrar of Trademarks, the Registrar of Geographical Indications, and the Controller of Patents would now be filed before the concerned High Courts and appeals against the decision of the Registrar of Copyright would be filed before the concerned Commercial Courts, including the Commercial Division of the High Courts. Litigations pending before the IPAB have also been transferred to the respective High Courts and Commercial Courts. It is difficult to contemplate as to how such matters will be adjudicated in the absence of experts or technical, administrative support, especially concerning patents. The Ordinance is also silent on appointing such experts.

Conclusion: The Aftermath

On the brighter side, this can also be contemplated as a cause leading to the reduction of legal costs for the litigants. Due to lesser stratification in the hierarchy of adjudicating bodies, the time spent in dispute redressal of such litigants will also be reduced as there will be no need to challenge the IPAB’s orders by way of Writ Petitions before the concerned High Courts since a direct appeal will now lie before the High Courts.

However, at the offset, the issue of extended timelines and delays due to procedural formalities will remain a harsh and unresolved reality unless specific guidelines are adopted. The already burdened courts will encounter additional poundage. Furthermore, it may invite administrative issues, including arriving at a common ground on various IP-related matters since the order of one High Court is not binding on the other. Such instability may cause hindrance in developing a sound scientific temper as also enshrined in the Constitution.

Since the issue of speedy redressal remains unresolved, and the issue has again circled back to where it started from, it would be interesting to observe whether any improvements or additional measures or guidelines will be adopted to facilitate quick adjudication of disputes requiring specialized knowledge and skill. Only after undergoing the test of time can an assessment be drawn corresponding to whether this was a progressive stance in the right direction or against the National IPR Policy of 2016 intended to proffer speedy liquidation of backlogs. ✅ For more visit: https://www.kashishipr.com/

[bananaipindia]

Fitbit and Garmin to be investigated for alleged patent violation, Tata’s patent application on water purifier rejected and more patent news

New Post has been published on https://www.bananaip.com/ip-news-center/fitbit-and-garmin-to-be-investigated-for-alleged-patent-violation-tatas-patent-application-on-water-purifier-rejected-and-more-patent-news/

Fitbit and Garmin to be investigated for alleged patent violation, Tata’s patent application on water purifier rejected and more patent news

In this week’s Patent News – Indian Patent Office invites Applications for National IP Awards 2020; RGNIIPM concludes Training Program of 181 newly recruited Examiners of Patents and Designs; Hindustan Unilever scores a victory in water wars with Tata; Volterra LLC files patent infringement suit against Monolithic Power Systems; Sonos files lawsuit against Google Inc. for patent infringement; Illumina files patent infringement suit against BGI in Sweden and U.K; Alibaba tightens anti-counterfeiting and IPR protection; CNIPA publishes revised Patent Examiners Guidelines; European Commission publishes report on Protection and Enforcement of IPR in third countries; EPO and other representatives hold meeting to implement Unitary Patent package; USITC launches investigation against Fitbit and Garmin for suspected patent violation.

India Patent News

Indian Patent Office invites Applications for National IP Awards 2020

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks has invited the submission of Applications for its annual National IP Awards ceremony to be held later this year. The awards will be presented to top achievers comprising of individual persons, institutions, organizations and enterprises for their contributions in the field of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications, Startups, MSME’s and Enforcement of IPR’s. In addition to this, three WIPO Awards will be presented by the Organization under the WIPO Awards Program, on the same day. The National IP Awards ceremony will be held in New Delhi, on the occasion of World IP Day, on 26th April 2020.

The ten categories under which the awards shall be presented include:

1.      Top Individual for Patents & Commercialization

2.      Top Indian Academic institution for Patents & Commercialization

3.      Top R & D institution/organisation for Patents & Commercialization

4.      Top Public Limited Company / Private Limited Company for Patents & Commercialization in India

5.      Top Indian Private Company (MSME) for Patents & Commercialization

6.      Top Start-up for IP and Commercialization

7.      Top Indian Company /Organization for Designs

8.      Top Indian Company for creating Brand in India and abroad

9.      Top Individual / organization for Best facilitation of Registration of GI and Promotion of Registered GI in India

10.  Best Police Unit (District / zone in a commissionarate) for enforcement of IP in the Country

The last date for submission of the applications is 7th February 2020. For more information, you may click here to access the official notification.

RGNIIPM concludes Training Program of 181 newly recruited Examiners of Patents and Designs

The Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Intellectual Property Management (RGNIIPM) recently concluded the training program for 181 newly recruited Examiners of Patents and Designs, at Nagpur. The six-month training program was exclusively held for Group ‘A’ officers who are now expected to begin discharging their respective duties as Examiners in the Indian Patent Offices located in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. Mr. Hoshiar Singh, ITS, Registrar of Copyright & Head, Indian Patent Office Delhi attended the Valedictory program as the Chief Guest. Dr. Pankaj Borkar, Head of RGNIIPM, delivered the welcome address and also congratulated all the Trainee Examiners on completing the program.

Patent Disputes/ Infringements/ Settlements/ Licensing

Hindustan Unilever scores a victory in water wars with Tata

It appears that Hindustan Unilever had a great start to the New Year after the Indian Patent Office, on January 2nd 2020, rejected a patent application filed by the Tata group relating to water purifying technology. The patent application numbered 1572/MUM/2008 and titled “A Water Purifier” was jointly filed by TATA CHEMICALS LTD. and TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. in 2008 and was opposed by HUL way back in 2011. After hearing both the parties in the matter, the Controller in his decision of 2nd January held that the Claims laid down in the specification lacked inventive step and the invention was obvious to a person skilled in the art.

In 2012, Tata Chemicals was successful at the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in revoking one of HUL’s patents related to water purifiers and purification technology.

Volterra LLC files patent infringement suit against Monolithic Power Systems

Volterra Semiconductor LLC, a subsidiary of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. has instituted a lawsuit against Monolithic Power Systems in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. According to suit, the MPS DC-to-DC Power Converter products of Monolithic infringe three of Volterra’s patents, namely – U.S.6,362,986, U.S 7,525,408 and U.S 7,772,955. The company is seeking damages and has also requested the court to grant an injunction.

Sonos files lawsuit against Google Inc. for patent infringement

Audio speaker manufacturer, Sonos has instituted a suit in the United States District Court, District of California, against Google Inc. for alleged patent infringement. According to Sonos, Google has infringed about one hundred patents however the company has only instituted a lawsuit concerning five of its patents. The suit was instituted by Sonos on 7th January 2020. The company has asked for a trial by jury and is seeking damages as well as an injunction. According to Reports, the company also intends to sue Amazon for infringement, however, the company could only afford to institute a lawsuit against only one tech giant due to economic concerns.

Illumina files patent infringement suit against BGI in Sweden and U.K

Illumina Inc., an American company engaged in offering sequencing and array-based solutions of genetic variation in the fields of cancer research and agriculture, has instituted a suit for patent infringement against MGI Tech Co. Ltd., and Latvia MGI Tech SIA, a subsidiary of BGI Group. Illumina has instituted the lawsuit in two jurisdictions, namely, Sweden and U.K. In the U.K, the suit has been filed in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court and in Sweden, the company has instituted the suit in the Patent and Market Court. The four patents at issue, i.e., EP 1 530 578 B1, EP 1 828 412 B2, EP 2 021 415 B1, and EP 3 002 289 B1, protect Illumina’s proprietary sequencing-by-synthesis chemistry. Similar lawsuits are pending in Demark, Turkey, U.S.A, Germany and Switzerland.

International Patent News

Alibaba tightens anti-counterfeiting and IPR protection

According to a recent Anti-Counterfeiting Report released by Alibaba, China’s e-commerce giant, the company has been making efforts to tighten its anti-counterfeiting and IPR protection. Alibaba has reportedly developed over 10 anti-counterfeiting technology like sampling and fake product screening models to combat the problem. The Report says that in 2017, Alibaba established an Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance, currently, a total of 170 brands from over 17 different countries have joined the alliance.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Report is published by the company every year and this is the company’s 5th Report.

CNIPA publishes revised Patent Examiners Guidelines

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), formerly known as State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), recently published the revised Patent Examiners Guidelines. The Guidelines will come into effect from 1st February 2020. The Guidelines throw light on emerging areas like Blockchain, Big Data, AI and Internet +. The method of application, analysis of claims and content are available in Chinese language only. According to the analysis of the Guidelines by the European Patent Office (EPO), the rules characterize the exact opposite of what is currently followed in the U.S.A.

European Commission publishes report on Protection and Enforcement of IPR in third countries

As a part of the efforts of the European Commission to strengthen the protection and enforcement of IPR in third countries, the European Commission has published a Report on Protection and Enforcement of IPR in third countries. The Report, which is published biennially, was published on 8th January 2020, this year.The objective of the Report is to essentially identify third countries in which the state of IPR protection and enforcement is expected to generate a high level of economic harm to EU interests. The Report also consists of an updated list of “priority countries” that have been recognized as a cause of concern. According to the latest Report, the list of priority countries are as follows –

Priority 1: China Priority 2: India, Indonesia, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine Priority 3: Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Malaysia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Thailand

While China continues to maintain its position as Priority 1 country, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia are this year’s new entrants as Priority 3 countries. Additionally, the Report places India as a Priority 2 country due to systematic problems in the area of IP protection and enforcement. The Report also says that Priority 2 Countries have made no progress or only limited progress in addressing issues especially relating to enforcement when compared to the previous report.

You may click here to access the Report

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_12

EPO and other representatives hold meeting to implement Unitary Patent package

The President of the European Patent Office (EPO), António Campinos, the Chair and members of the executive group of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Preparatory Committee and the Chair of the Unitary Patent Select Committee met on 10th January 2020 to make preparations for the implementation of the Unitary Patent package. The meeting was held after a complaint was lodged with the German Federal Constitutional Court by an individual against German ratification of the UPC Agreement where the Judge had indicated that Court would render its decision in the first quarter of 2020. According the official notification on the EPO website, the EPO is prepared to register its first Unitary Patent. The notification also adds that until the Phase of Provisional Applications begins, some essential steps cannot be taken to establish the UPC.

A Unitary Patent is a patent granted by the EPO for which a unitary effect can be obtained from the EPO for the territory of the participating EU Member States. The UPC will be an international court with jurisdiction for patents granted by the EPO.

Source: https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2020/20200110.html

USITC launches investigation against Fitbit and Garmin for suspected patent violation

The U.S International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced that the Commission is in the process of launching an investigation into wearable monitoring device manufacturers, Fitbit and Garmin after being prompted by Philips. The complaint was filed by Philips on 10th December 2019 with the USITC. In the complaint, the company has asserted the infringement of four patents – U.S. Patent No. 7,845,228; U.S. Patent No. 9,820,698; U.S. Patent No. 9,717,464; and U.S. Patent No. 9,961,186. Philips had asked the agency to conduct an investigation and issue a limited exclusion order as well as cease and desist orders.

You may click here to access the as-filed complaint.

Compiled by Vibha Amarnath

About BIP’s Patent Attorneys

The patent news bulletin is brought to you by the patent division of BananaIP Counsels, a top patent and IP firm in India. Led by Senior Partners, Somashekar Ramakrishna, Nitin Nair and Vinita Radhakrishnan, BIP’s Patent Attorneys are among the leading patent practitioners in the country. They work with clients such as Mahindra and Mahindra, Samsung, HCL, Eureka Forbes, to name a few. The patent attorneys at BIP have strong technical and legal expertise in areas such as IT/Software, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning, Data Analytics, Electronics and Telecommunication, Mechanical, Automotive, Green Energy, Traditional Medicine and Bio/Pharma domains. The firm is a first choice for clients looking for support in patent filing, prosecution, management and strategy in India, and across the world.

This weekly patent news bulletin is a part of their pro bono work, and is aimed at spreading patent awareness. You are free to share the news with appropriate attribution and backlink to the source.

If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please feel free to write to contact@bananaip.com

Disclaimer: Kindly note that the news bulletin has been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP’s reporters may not have verified all the news published in the bulletin. You may write to contact@bananaip.com for corrections and take down.

[lexprotector1-blog]

IP Portfolio Management services in Bangalore

THE BACKGROUND OF CONSTITUTING “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD (IPAB)” IN INDIA

 The capital and labour forces were the main force of Commerce and Industry since the inception of internet technology. From the end of the 20th century, the knowledge and technology became the main factor of industrial development. Technology oriented manufacturing process replaced the labour intensive production method. The new mechanized process cut the production cost substantially. Thus the industry began to create a huge amount of wealth asset and the accumulated assets were invested to generate new products to bring the happiness and comfort in the life of human being. The neo liberal economy created an environment of speedy research and development works. The technology becomes a buzz word of the present society.

At the same time, the instant communications pose a threat to the new invention. The new technology developed by one company can be accessed by its competitors within a few hours through instant communication facility and mobile workforce. Another factor is the modern industries are getting easy access to the traditional knowledge of a geographical region. Therefore, the industries and various countries demand the protection of the new invention and traditional knowledge of geographical region.

After several round of negotiations, the world community formulated a guidelines to protect the new invention and traditional knowledge. Most of the World Trade Organization (WTO) countries agreed to modify the laws and enforce new laws in the following areas of intellectual property:

·         Patents

·         Copyright and Related Rights

·         Trade Marks

·         Geographical Indication

·         Industrial Designs

·         Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits

·         Trade Secrets

The rich heritage of India and a huge number of intelligent workforces are the great assets of Indian economy. In this hour, India felt the need a stringent patent law to protect its traditional knowledge and technology. Considering it, Government of India amended the “Patents Act 1970”, “Designs Act 1911”, “Trade and Merchandise Act 1958”, “Copyright Act 1957” according to the guidelines of the World Trade Organization. The Government also enacted new laws like “Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Layout Design Act 2000” and “Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 to protect the traditional knowledge”.

The new laws open the gate of huge amount of patent and copyright litigations. On the other hand, many national and trans-national Companies file applications to obtain the patents of their products from India. To meet this challenge, Government of India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry constituted “Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)” on 15th September, 2003 for the speedy disposal of Patent and Copyright applications. The Board was also empowered the revocation of patent, cancel the trademark and taking decisions on the matters arising out of Geographical Indications.If you want to manage the portfolio services then contact Lex Protector, we provide IP Portfolio Management services in Bangalore.

.

[iiprd77]

Patent Prosecution in India: First Examination Report

According to Section 12 of the Patents Act, 1970, when a request for examination has been made in respect of an application for a patent in the prescribed manner under section 11B, the application and specification with other documents related thereto shall be referred at the earliest by the Controller to an examiner for making a report, wherein the examiner makes a report after carrying out detailed Patent Prosecution in India with respect to following matters:

a) whether the application and the specification with other documents relating thereto are in accordance with the requirements of the Patents Act, 1970 and rules made there under

b) whether there is any lawful ground of objection to the grant of patent under the Patents Act, 1970

c) the result of investigations under Section 13

 The Controller considers the report of the examiner generally within one month from the date of the receipt and is sent to the applicant in the form of a report, called as First Examination Report (FER). The Controller may raise following objections, if any, for a patent application in a FER:

a) Lack of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability

b) Subject matter relating to a category, which falls within the purview of Sections 3 and 4

c) Non-fulfillment of any other requirement under the Act

The applicant is required to comply with all the requirements imposed upon him by the Patents act, 1970 as communicated through FER or subsequent communication, in the form of a written response within six months from the date of issuance of FER. If the applicant fails to respond to the FER within given time, the application is deemed to have been abandoned under Section 21(1) and a notice and/or a letter is sent to applicant for the same. However, applicant may re-file the documents after six months from the date of issuance of FER, and the Controller may decide to proceed with the case based on evidences made available to him for such delay.

If the applicant contests any of the objections of the Controller communicated to along with his observations as to whether or not the specification is to be amended, an opportunity of being heard is given, if requested by the applicant. After hearing the applicant, the Controller may specify or permit such amendment as he thinks fit and grant the patent. The Controller may refuse to grant the patent unless the amendments so specified are made or any other requirements of the Act and Rules are not complied with.

No refusal of patent is done without giving an opportunity of being heard under Section 14. An order refusing an application under Section 15 shall be a legal notice order that is appealable before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).

[juudgeblog]

Significance & Importance of ‘Statement of Working’ for Patenting System in India

In this article, Jyoti Chauhan, Registered Indian Patent & Trademark Agent (IPO), Manager Operations (IPR) at Effectual Services discusses the Significance & Importance of Statement of Working for Patenting System in India.

Introduction

The Statement of working is important information which is submitted by either the patentee or the licensee to the IPO (Indian patent office) that clearly states the commercial exploitation of a patent in India. This statement of working system also checks if the patent meets the reasonable requirements of the public.

Legal provisions

Statement of working needs to be submitted for all patents in force under Section 146(2) of the Indian Patent Act and under rule 131. These statements are required to be filed on an annual basis with respect to all the granted patents in India. These statements of working disclose the extent to which the patented invented has been worked on the commercial scale. The timeline for filing of the working statement is March 31st of every year for each preceding calendar year. This statement is submitted by filing prescribed Form-27 each year within 3 months from the end of the calendar year. This form can be filed online by either the patentee or the licensee, or by a patent agent/ attorney who has the address of service in India. In case, the patentee or licensee is residing outside India, he must contact an Indian patent agent/ attorney for submitting this form at the IPO.

The controller at any time can also ask the patentee or the licensee to submit details in writing as to what extent of commercialization in respect of the patent has been exploited in India, as per Section 146(1).

One must update the Indian patent office with following details while filing form-27 i.e. statement of working of patented invention:

(i) The patented invention: { } Worked { } Not worked

(a) If not worked: reasons for not working and steps being taken for the working of the invention.

(b) If worked: quantum and value (in Rupees), of the patented product: i) manufactured in India ii) imported from other countries (give country wise details)

(ii) Licenses and sub-licenses granted during the year

(iii) State whether the public requirement has been met partly/adequately/to the fullest extent at a reasonable price.

Significance and importance of statement of working in India

Compulsory license

The information disclosed in the statement of working is used while taking decisions on granting a compulsory license. Therefore, legal provisions relating to compulsory licenses and working of patent are interlinked. IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board), India, also takes into consideration the same information disclosed in the statement of working by the patentee at the time of granting the first compulsory license in India. IPAB has taken a landmark decision in “Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd” case where compulsory license was granted to Natco.

Penalty on failure to oblige

In case, the patentee or licensee refuses or fails to submit information as required under Sec 146, the patentee or licensee can be punished with a fine, which can be extended up to Ten lakh rupees under Section 122(1)(b). Further, providing wrongful information or statement can impose imprisonment up to six months or fine or both under Section 122(2).

Section 122(1)(b) of The Indian Patent Act:

122. Refusal or failure to supply information (1) If any person refuses or fails to furnish—

(b) to the Controller any information or statement which he is required to furnish by or under section 146, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

A patent can be also revoked on the grounds of non-working of patented invention under section 85 of Indian Patent Act.

Patent litigation

Working or non-working of a patent becomes an important factor while considering infringement suits. In suits relating to infringement under section 108 of Indian Patent Act, the patentee, can claim damages and injunction and/or an account of profit as relief. The disclosed information in the statement of working can be used by the court to estimate the actual damages that may have been claimed. On the other hand, if statement of working is not filed, the alleged infringer may argue that the patentee might not have encountered any damages in view of not filing any statement of working.

Publication of working statements

The statement of working provides useful insights into effectiveness of the patenting system for various companies, industries and other business bodies which utilize the patented invention in their course of business. The IPO made all working statements publicly available online, filed by the patentee during the preceding year. Section 146(3) clearly mentions power of Controller to publish the information received by the IPO under section 146(1) and (2). Such type of publication of valuable information shows the effectiveness of patenting system in India and can be utilized in many forums like academicians, law-makers and potential licensees to amend or improve the Indian patent law. It also helps to evaluate the patents covered under these published working statements.

Publication of statement of working encourages development in the science and technology domain. Beside this, it also has business and trade advantages. Working statements pertaining to a patent help in evaluating the value of a patent and thus help a potential licensee to negotiate the fee for getting the license which would be based on the value of a particular patent. Moreover, a working statement is also important in proving a milestone from the business merger or a business takeover perspective. Furthermore, industries may customize their resources occupied in research and development which would be according to the prospering technology relating to their field based on the information extracted from available working statements. Thus, the information we acquire from working of inventions gives an excellent idea about the commercial viability of inventions, effectiveness of inventions and plays an important role in valuation of patent portfolios and compulsory licensing.

Conclusion

Submitting information regarding working of patent is becoming a peculiar requirement under Indian patent law. Patents are granted to encourage invention, innovation, research and technology and to ensure that the invention, for which the patent has been filed, is being commercialized for the benefit of the public. Filing of statement of working discloses periodic information to the Indian patent office regarding Commercialization of the patented invention in Indian Jurisdiction thereby preventing the non-commercialization/ non- use or misuse of patented inventions. It does appear that the information from relevant form helps to evaluate critical information for compulsory licensing, also this information is important in the industry, and helps in taking business decisions. Therefore, the filing of Form 27 for all granted patents is a statutory requirement which is required to be followed and the Indian patent office should enforce action strictly against those people who are violating the Indian patent law.

The post Significance & Importance of ‘Statement of Working’ for Patenting System in India appeared first on iPleaders.

Significance & Importance of ‘Statement of Working’ for Patenting System in India syndicated from https://namechangersmumbai.wordpress.com/

[indialegal]

SC extends tenure of Justice Manmohan Singh as head of IPAB by 3 months

SC extends tenure of Justice Manmohan Singh as head of IPAB by 3 months

[ad_1]

New Delhi: Justice (Retired) Manmohan Singh’s tenure as chairman of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was today extended by three months by the Supreme Court. 

The bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat issued the directive, while hearing pleas regarding appointments to tribunals and challenging the Tribunal Rules, 2020. Justice Singh was…