As the world continues to deal with the coronavirus pandemic and its impact, we continued to see exciting updates in the area of intellectual property, particularly trademarks and copyright, in the second quarter of this year. This newsletter brings you the most important updates on intellectual property in India for the second quarter of the year. The Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA) had written to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Pharmaceuticals asking them to revoke Gilead`s Indian patent to remdesivir at a time when it was considered a potential cure for COVID-19. The request was based on grounds of non-patentability and public interest. Interestingly, the WHO recently issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19. In a development that could change the landscape of patent law with regard to software patents, IPAB has allowed Tunisian citizen Ferid Allani to file a patent application for a «method and device for accessing information sources and services on the Internet», 19 years after the original application was filed! In 2019, Justice Pratibha Singh of the Delhi High Court issued an order ordering the Patent Office to re-examine the application in relation to developments since the patent was filed in 1999. This is the addition of the term «per se» to paragraph 3(k) of the Patent Act, which previously prohibited the patenting of computer programs. The court found that this had been done to ensure that genuine inventions developed on the basis of computer programs (and not just computer programs) were not rejected. Thus, if the invention has a «technical effect» or a «technical contribution», it would be patentable even if it is based on a computer program. The granting of this patent has opened the field of patent applications related to artificial intelligence, blockchain technologies and other digital products that can be based on computer programs.
(ii) Advertisers of Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathic products and services have been advised to comply with the Order of the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) dated April 1, 2020 on Advertising for Coronavirus (COVID-19). 8. India ranked 40th out of 53 countries in the GIPC IP Index 2020 In a recent decision examining the arbitrability of a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court, with the intention of dealing with cases in a timely manner, clarified that disputes relating to infringement of trademark licensing agreements can be resolved through arbitration. In another recent order that considered Facebook a well-known brand, the Delhi Supreme Court upheld a company that sold confectionery and items called «Facebake.» On the other hand, the commitment of the Governments of the United States of America and India to strengthen and protect intellectual property was formalized by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in IP examination and strengthening and protecting the IP system in India for the next decade. The Memorandum of Understanding took place on the 19th. February 2020 received approval from the Union Cabinet. The MoU aims to strengthen the exchange of information and best practices for the registration and examination of trademark, patent, copyright, geographical indications and design applications. It also includes the exchange of best practices for the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional knowledge bases. The MoU also aims to facilitate the exchange of IP best practices, knowledge and experience for state-owned enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises, industries and research and development organizations. In any foreign market, companies should consider several general principles for effective protection of their intellectual property. Read our article on intellectual property protection and visit Stopfakes.gov for more resources. In view of the above-mentioned developments, it becomes clear that there is a need and necessity for further amendments to intellectual property laws.
In the face of rapid technological development, globalization and fierce competition, such laws must be consistent with international treaties and practices. The legal process in India regarding intellectual property laws is generally lengthy and uncertain. The issues remain pending before the courts for a long time, resulting in delays in the justice system. As we enter the new year, there is optimism and hope in the face of the unprecedented challenges facing businesses and consumers in 2020. Our paper summarizes the main legislative, regulatory and judicial developments that show that India`s IP environment remains dynamic. Our list of other notable IP developments in 2016 can be found in the full report here. You can also check out the list of the most read articles on the blog in 2020 here. Please click here to view our list of India`s top 10 judgments/orders (speed/implications), here to check out our list of India`s top 10 judgments/orders (jurisprudence/legal clarity), here for India`s top 10 legislative and policy developments in 2020. Unfortunately, many traditions around the world have had to be shattered over the past year, but at SpicyIP, we are happy to continue our annual tradition of telling all the major developments that have impacted the Indian IP landscape in 2020. Indian patent rules require that Form 27 be filed annually by patent holders and licensees on the details of their business activities for all their patents valid in India. Although the annual requirement was originally created to ensure that patent holders manufacture their inventions in India, in reality, form can hinder innovation.
The revision of Form 27 in October 2020 has improved matters, although it still presents significant risks and undue burden on rights holders, and may compromise their confidential business information and strategies. In addition, failure to comply with the requirements of Form 27 may be grounds for applying for a compulsory license and may result in loss of patents, significant penalties, and/or imprisonment. The Intellectual Property Appeal Board (IPAB) announced on the 31st. December 2020, shortly before the end of the year, its decision to set licence fees for the broadcast of sound recordings by radio. The judgment was issued in response to several requests from broadcasters and music owners through collecting societies for the setting of fees for the communication of phonograms to the public by radio. The purpose of setting a royalty rate and interfering with the free market price negotiation process was primarily to balance the interests of copyright owners and broadcasters.