Should the interests of a nation outweigh the interests of a person?
What would this mean for entrepreneurship, research and development, and other enterprises that flourish when individuals are suitably rewarded? India’s denial of a patent to Novartis for its cancer drug Glivec has given commentators plenty to be concerned about on this score (see News).
Writing in this issue’s Vantage Point, Shamnad Basheer, a chair professor of IP law at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata and a respected commentator, provides his views on the Supreme Court ruling on the Glivec patent case and what it means for patent holders.
The cries of dismay – and applause – that have greeted the ruling have in part drowned out what the court actually said. For far from denying patent protection for incremental inventions pertaining to drugs, the judgment linked it to the “enhancement of therapeutic efficacy”. And in the case of the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate for which Novartis had sought a patent, the court said it had been shown “absolutely nothing” to prove enhancement of therapeutic efficacy “apart from the adroit submissions of the counsel”.
This not only raises the bar for IP owners seeking protection in India, but will also require the country’s intellectual property lawyers to up their game in order to demonstrate patentability. Is India’s IP rights community up to this task?
Questions such as this will no doubt engage delegates at the 135th annual meeting of the International Trademark Association (INTA) in Dallas on 4-8 May. India Business Law Journal and its sister magazine China Business Law Journal are proud to be media sponsors of this important event, at which both magazines will be distributed to delegates.
Of particular interest to INTA delegates will be this issue’s Cover story, which showcases some of the leading lights among India’s IP lawyers and law firms. The veritable explosion in the number of small and mid-sized IP law firms of repute is good news for IP owners both outside and inside India and many report that they are finding expertise and efficiency within the ranks of the newer IP firms.
Alibaba Group, for example, now uses Aditya & Associates, a 12-lawyer firm in Mumbai, for all its IP work in India, while Kaisu Korpua at Roschier Brands Team in Helsinki commends ZeusIP, a 19-lawyer firm in Delhi, for its advice, which she says is “very good, in particular when compared to some other, older and bigger Indian law firms”.
This has not diminished the allure of the more established players. As we point out, India’s larger IP firms and IP practices at full-service firms continue to be sought out and the increased competition has pushed them to do better.
While Anand and Anand, whose managing partner is described as a “a protagonist of intellectual property in India” is at the forefront of many a sizeable rights dispute, IP lawyers at full-service law firms are forging new paths as they advise on the intellectual property aspects of M&A transactions and other business deals. Companies requiring the services of an IP lawyer in India have never had it better.
The IP battles in India that have attracted international attention have typically been clashes between multinational pharmaceutical companies and their home-grown counterparts. However, in Setting new standards we turn the spotlight on a new sphere of action: a dispute involving standard-essential patents.
In an as-yet unresolved clash over a licence for such patents, Ericsson has filed an infringement suit against Micromax, an Indian manufacturer and importer of mobile phones and LED screens, at Delhi High Court. All eyes are on the two companies as they negotiate the terms of a licence, but as our timely coverage points out this case could have far-reaching ramifications for IP rights owners.
While the enforcement of IP rights within India is a concern for international IP owners, the burgeoning Indian companies that export software, technology and services should be equally concerned about safeguarding their IP rights in other jurisdictions. In A world of IP challenges, we focus on the key risks that Indian IP owners face outside the country, which as we detail can be varied.
As Aurélia Marie at Cabinet Beau de Loménie in Paris points out, Indian IP owners sometimes have limited experience abroad and need advice. Our coverage introduces some of the local advisers who stand ready to assist in several jurisdictions, which we hope will be valuable for in-house counsel.
In-house counsel have a challenging task on their hands as they have had to manage with increasingly tight legal budgets. In More bang for your buck, six prominent in-house counsel tell India Business Law Journal exactly what they want from their law firms and why some firms may be failing to deliver on a number of scores.
Their candid views on the subject will no doubt provide food for thought to many of our readers.
