Mindel Scott

History of Indian Patent Law

Shortly after section 3(d) of the Patents Amendment Act 2005 came into force, the law was tested. In 2006, Novartis filed an Indian patent application on the betacrystalline form of imatinib mesylate. Footnote 27 The Madras Patent Office rejected the patent application on the grounds that imatinib mesylate was a known compound (a molecule dating from before the 1990s) and that the betacrystalline form was only a derivative of imatinib mesylate. Accordingly, India had to find a way to use the trade benefits of globalization against its obligation to grant stronger patent protection to multinational corporations under the TRIPS Agreement, which risked undermining its main social objectives and the interests of the domestic pharmaceutical industry. India was concerned that the strengthening of intellectual property protection under the TRIPS Agreement would again unduly favour multinationals and nullify the benefits of the 1970 Patent Act. For example, Section 25(1) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (2005) provides for pre-grant opposition to pending patent applications. Pre-grant opposition may be based on a number of grounds, footnote 42, including anticipation, lack of inventive step, non-invention under Section 3 of the Patent Act (including the anti-renewal provisions of Section 3(d)), insufficient or imprecise description of the invention in the patent specification, failure to disclose the source of the biological material used for the invention and inventions considered traditional Knowledge matters. In principle, in the traditional patent system, the inventor must file an application in each country where he wishes to be the owner of a patent. The Paris Convention provided an excellent opportunity to claim the priority date of an earlier application for subsequent applications abroad if both the parent country and the foreign countries were members of the Convention. The advantage of the Paris Convention is that, after filing a patent application in his own country, the inventor can decide within 12 months whether or not to file patent applications in the Paris Convention countries. This in turn means that the inventor wishes to file a patent application abroad; Within 12 months, he must make all the necessary arrangements for language translations, filing of patent applications in all countries, gross fees of patent offices, lawyers.

In order to overcome the problem of duplication, BIRPI/WIPO issued a new treaty in 1970 entitled the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The PCT has become an international cooperation agreement for the filing, search and examination of patent applications and the dissemination of the technical information contained therein. Any interested person may, at any time after the grant of the patent, but before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of publication of the grant of the patent, file an opposition with the controller in the prescribed manner for one of the following reasons: The Committee also noted that the Patent Act should contain clear guidelines to ensure the manufacture of food and medicines, as well as surgical and healing equipment. be available to the public at the lowest price appropriate to equitable remuneration for the patent proprietor. The Indian patent system has failed in its main objective, which is to promote invention among Indians and to promote the development and exploitation of new inventions for industrial purposes in the country to ensure benefits to the majority of the population. Footnote 11e) The mere addition of mixtures, which may lead to an aggregation of properties, is not patentable. This exception generally applies to chemical substances such as H20, H2So4, etc. The mere addition of elements does not constitute an entirely new product and is therefore not patentable.

Addition leads to the synergy effect, i.e. fusion has a larger effect than individual effects. (f) The mere aggregation or reproduction of devices in a known manner so that they function independently of each other is not an invention. The mere addition of different substances and any combination of different substances is not patentable. For example, a flashlight added to the pen to improve its function. (g) Repealed (h) Horticultural or agricultural processes are not patentable. For example, the simple cultivation of algae or mushrooms is not patentable. (i) Medicinal, curative, prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic agents for the treatment of human and animal diseases are not patentable. Medical, curative or surgical methods of curing diseases are not patentable. (j) The biological process essential for plant and animal welfare is not patentable. (k) Simple mathematical or computer program. (l) Any aesthetic creation protected by copyright is not patentable.

m) Any mental act or mental rule or method of play. For example, these games are Ludo, chess, Sudoku, etc. (n) Any representation, such as railway timetables or timetables, is not patentable. (o) Not every topography of integrated circuits is patentable (p) Traditional knowledge is not an invention. Traditional knowledge such as the antiseptic properties of turmeric is not patentable. whereas granted patents should not impede the protection of public health and nutrition and should serve as a tool to promote the public interest, particularly in sectors crucial to India`s socio-economic and technological development; Unlike the pre-grant opposition, which already existed in one form or another in Indian patent law, post-grant opposition is a “new supplement” to the Patents (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2005. The grounds for post-grant opposition are very similar to those for pre-grant opposition and cover virtually all patentability criteria. Therefore, to understand the “new” grounds for post-grant opposition, see Section 25(2)(a)(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (2005) Footnote 45: In a short period of time, the pre-grant submission was successful. Novartis` waiver of a patent application for Glivec under Section 3(d) of the Act and the revocation of an EMR previously granted for the same drug to cure leukemia are examples. Section 4 deals with inventions related to nuclear energy and they are not patentable.

It deals with inventions relating to atomic energy, which are also non-patentable and fall under section 20 (1) of the Atomic Energy Act 1962. the proprietor of the patent or the person who derives ownership of or a right in a patent from the patent holder does not abuse and that the patent owner or any person deriving from the patent owner does not engage in practices that unduly restrict trade or impede the international transfer of technology; and that, in the case of a patent granted in response to an application under the Convention, the patent application has not been filed within twelve months from the date of the first application for protection of the invention filed in a country signatory to the Agreement or in India by the proprietor of the patent or a person from whom he derives ownership; After IPAB rejected the patent application in 2009, Novartis appealed directly to the Supreme Court with an application for special permission under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. Under normal circumstances, IPAB would have had to appeal to one of the High Courts before it could appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the patent, if granted on appeal, would expire in 2018, so another appeal at this stage would be unnecessary. Given this urgency and the need for a significant decision on section 3(d), the Supreme Court granted special leave to circumvent the Supreme Court`s appeal process. It is important to note that Janice Mueller published a seminal paper in this area. Footnote 7 Thus, India`s patent regime reflects India`s journey through three distinct periods: colonization, post-independence, and globalization. During the “colonization phase”, India`s Patents and Designs Act 1911 – drafted by the British – enacted India`s first patent laws. India gained independence in 1947. However, during the “post-independence” period, British-imposed patent laws, favorable to foreigners, hindered the development of India`s pharmaceutical industry and forced independent India to import even basic medicines at prohibitive prices. As a result, in 1949, the Indian government formed a high-level committee headed by a prominent jurist of the Lahore High Court, Bakshi Tek Chand, and requested a thorough review of existing patent laws. The main conclusion of the Chand Committee was that India`s existing patent laws provided asymmetrical protection for foreign multinational enterprises while severely hampering the development of the domestic manufacturing sector.

According to the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and TrademarksFootnote 8: The world patent was invented from a Latin word patent-em, which means open. A patent is a document issued by the government to the inventor that grants permission to manufacture, use, and sell the invention exclusively after disclosure for a specified period of time. Unlike patents, there was a monopoly in which inventions were not disclosed and sold exclusively.