Category Archives: Sec 3 (d)

Patent denied, price of prostate cancer drug may go down

The Indian Patent Office recently denied a patent for the drug Xtandi (Enzalutamide) by Japanese firm Astellas Pharma used in  treatment of prostate cancer. This decision comes in the light of the pre-grant opposition filed by pharma companies BDR Pharma, drug … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh Dole Act, March in rights, Patent, Patent Opposition, Sec 3 (d), Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

India to US: Will not tighten IPR rules beyond TRIPS mandate

Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman demands food safety clearance mechanism during talks with US Trade Representative Source: The Hindu BusinessLine | October 20, 2016 India and the US continued to differ on the issue of intellectual property rights (IPR) norms at … Continue reading

Posted in Compulsory Licensing, Data Exclusivity, Evergreening, IPR, Patent linkage, Sec 3 (d), TRIPS, TRIPS plus, Uncategorized, UNHLP report, USTR 301 report | Leave a comment

Swamy & Subramanian: Comment and context

In a series of tweets, Swamy alleged that “Arvind Subramanian of Washington DC” had urged the US to act against India’s national interests, and called for him to be sacked. Source: The Indian Express | June 23, 2016 After having … Continue reading

Posted in Sec 3 (d), Uncategorized, USTR 301 report | Leave a comment

Why India must beware the side-effects of Pacific Treaty

December 30, 2015, The Hindu Businessline | ARCHANA JATKAR The scope of the recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) goes well beyond conventional trade concerns. It includes extensive obligations on intellectual property (IP) exceeding the minimum standards of the World … Continue reading

Posted in Patent linkage, Patent Term Extension, Sec 3 (d), TPP, TRIPS flexibilities, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No respite for Big Pharma on patents

FINANCIAL EXPRESS| By Banikinkar Pattanayak on December 30, 2015 Dilution of Section 3(d), compulsory licensing unlikely despite US concerns Disappointed with India’s new National IPR Policy, the US has upped the ante for a world-class patenting regime in India, but … Continue reading

Posted in Compulsory Licensing, IPR policy, Sec 3 (d), TRIPS, TRIPS plus, US pressure on India | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Delhi HC upholds Roche’s patent claims on Tarceva against Cipla

Economic Times, November 28, 2015. Mumbai – A division bench of the Delhi High Court sided with Roche against Indian firm Cipla, upholding the Swiss drug maker’s patent claims on key lung cancer drug erlotinib hydrochloride, branded Tarceva. The ruling is … Continue reading

Posted in Cancer, Patent infringement, Sec 3 (d) | Leave a comment

Drug patenting in India: looking back and looking forward

Nature reviews. By Bhaven N. Sampat and Kenneth C. Shadlen. Patent protection for drugs in India has been a contentious issue in recent years, with several high-profile denials of patents — for example, for Novartis’ anticancer drug imatinib mesylate (Glivec; also … Continue reading

Posted in Indian Patent Law, Patents, Sec 3 (d) | Leave a comment