The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No.30
28th July, 2021
This week’s judgement deals with the exemption offered under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court in this instant case also studied the Bayer Corporation judgement and its explanation regarding the safe harbour under Section 107A. This week’s blog post briefly discusses the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report, titled ‘Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India’ and published on July 23, 2021. We also start a new topic in our drafting section this week, Dependent Claims.
PATENT CASE LAW
Merck Sharpe v. SMS Pharmaceuticals
2021 SCC OnLine Del 3747
Merck Sharpe filed for a permanent injunction against SMS Pharmaceuticals to prevent infringement of their Patent IN 209816 (’IN 816) relating to Sitagliptin, an anti-diabetic drug. The said patent expires on 5th July, 2022. They filed for an injunction against the Defendant to stop the allegedly unlawful export of Sitagliptin. SMS Pharmaceuticals however, contested that the export was lawful and permitted under Section 107A of the Act as it was for research purposes. Read more
Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India
The Department related Standing Committee on Commerce tabled its one hundred and sixty first report on 23rd July, 2021. The Report is titled ‘Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India’ and examines the challenges in strengthening IPR regime, the related procedural and substantive constraints, legal aspects and other issues such as low awareness of IPR, counterfeiting and piracy, IP Financing, IPRs in agriculture and pharmaceutical sector, etc. This article seeks to briefly discuss the highlights of the amendments suggested by the Report, with a special focus on the Patents Act, 1970. Read more
PATENT DRAFTING TIPS – DEPENDENT CLAIMS
A dependent claim refers to an earlier claim and further limits that claim. The following are some important points to keep in mind while drafting such claims:
- A dependent claim should fall strictly within the preamble of its parent claim, it should deal with the same element/invention.
- A claim that is dependent in appearance but not in substance will not be considered a dependent claim by the above decision.
That’s all folks for this week.