Controller General Kurian continues march towards greater transparency at the Patent Office

In an absolutely fantastic effort to increase transparency at the Patent Office, Controller General of the Patents & Trademark Office Kurian has published on the patent office website details of the Prosecution History, Complete Specification and Examination Reports of published patent application and all details including e-Register in case of granted patents. The patent office information database has been renamed from IPIRS to the much cooler sounding – IPAIRS. This announcement has come shortly on the heels of another announcement that all trademark information was being put up on the website.

Up until now the patent office website carried only the patent specification, abstract and the publication dates of the application, filing etc. The latest additions to the IPAIRS system will be the First Examination Reports (FER) and the details of the Patent Register. With these additions the Patent Office has basically ensured that almost the entire file wrapper is available on the website. I would have provided more details on the new system except that it seems to be facing some preliminary glitches.

The publication of such information on the website greatly eases the process of retreiving information from the patent office. Prior to this information being put up on the website a patentee would have to necessarily end his agent to the Patent Office to carry out a physical inspection of the files after which he would have to apply for photocopies. By putting up this information on the website the CGPDTM has ensured that patentees and the general public can access information related to their patents in a cost-efficient manner.

We will get you more details on the website once it is fully functional.

Controller General Kurian Facilitates Trademark Transparency

With all the controversy surrounding the trademark portfolio, currently in the hands of PH Kurian, the the current Controller General, news that the Intellectual Property Office has made available to the public, complete details relating to Trademark Registry is heartening to note and is another example of his continued efforts to increase transparency and public accountability in the trademark office.

From the IPO website's homepage, a short news report states that:

“In a further step to achieve complete transparency in the Trade Marks Registry, Office of the CGPDTM has made available to the public complete details of pending Trade Mark Applications, Registered Trade Marks including the Prosecution History, Examination Report, Copy of the Application, e-Register of Trade Marks, Copy of the Trade Mark Certificate, Opposition details etc.”

This is a noteworthy development for a couple of reasons. For one, there is the obvious benefit of having such information at our fingertips, made available to us instantly and without any charge. Secondly, there was a significant amount of time, energy and money utilised in obtaining such information, providing ample opportunities to make a quick buck. In effect, the move eliminates the middleman and is a big step towards promoting efficiency, something distinctive to the Kurian administration. The IPO also invites suggestions from all stakeholders for improvement and refinement of the system, a concern that is rarely seen in the administration of such offices. Kudos to Kurian and his office for taking up this issue and making deliberated efforts towards cleaning up the systems currently in place.

The "Fishy" Trademark Handover

In a wonderful piece of investigative journalism, CH Unni reports on the rather "fishy" move to divest the current Controller General, PH Kurian of his "trademark" portfolio.

Some see this as an attempt to reinstate a corrupt regime of the past...a regime that the efficient and energetic Kurian helped clean up to a large extent. Kurian's reformist zeal in terms of ushering in major transparency measures helped lend significant accountability and credibility to a much maligned and opaque office. But his reforms appear to have rubbed some folks the wrong way.

I personally think that it is high time that we had two dedicated Controller Generals; one for patents and another for trademarks. But for this to work well, the government must be very particular about who they chose to take over trademarks. If past experience is anything to go by, they must bring in a clean and efficient officer from the outside. Just like they did with Kurian.

Sadly, the present move does nothing of that sort. In fact, in so far as the government attempts to completely divest Kurian of his "trademark" portfolio, the move could be questioned legally. For under the present scheme, there is only one CG for both patents and trademarks. The government may delegate some of the functions of the CG to another officer--but this is a very limited power...and it is for the CG to decide from time to time as to what powers he wishes to delegate to this new incumbent....

In other words, Kurian cannot be completely divested of his powers of "trademark" superintendence, unless the trademarks act is amended by Parliament.

As I had stated in my interview to Unni,

"Bringing in an outside IAS officer as the present Controller General was perhaps the best thing the Manmohan Singh government did for our patent regime in a long time. With his bold reforms, particularly in terms of increasing the transparency of the office, the energetic PH Kurian has effectively managed to bring a decent amount of credibility to an office plagued for many years by allegations of corruption and inefficiency.

The trademarks office has been dogged with more corruption allegations than the patents office—which makes it even more imperative for the government to bring in a clean and efficient officer from the outside, if it is serious about reforming this office.”

Here is the complete article by Unni:

Trademarks section to move out of IP office

By CH Unni

India plans to spin off the trademark registry from its intellectual property (IP) office, which currently deals with trademarks, patents and designs.

A government official and a patent law expert said the move will bring more focus to both offices and help them deal with complex issues, but critics claim the change has been prompted by a desire to stop reforms instituted by the IP office’s new chief from changing the way trademarks are given.

To separate the two offices, the department of industrial policy and promotion (DIPP), the commerce ministry body under which the IP office falls, has already shifted some powers of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks related to trademarks to another officer.

In January 2009, the government appointed P.H. Kurian to the top post in the IP office, the controller general. He has since tried to reform the way the office works and, in an attempt to cleanse the system of corrupt practices, transferred at least a dozen senior officials, mostly from the trademarks section, to other posts. He also made most information related to the processing of patents, designs and trademarks accessible online, reducing scope for corruption.

A senior official at the trademarks registry in Mumbai confirmed that the government had already made the change. “Part of the administrational powers of the trademark office has been shifted to senior joint registrar V. Ravi since 10 May by an internal order,” said this person, who did not want to be identified.

Ravi has been with the department for at least two decades. He declined to comment as he is not authorized to speak with the media.

V. Bhaskar, joint secretary, DIPP, said that a formal separation of patents and trademarks has been considered for better focus. “We are looking into the legal aspects of it,” he said.

An expert said the move could work for the better.

“Our current law makes it very clear that there can only be one controller general with overall powers of superintendence over both the patents and the trademark regimes. Given the increasing complexity of these regimes, and patents in particular, it may be desirable to have two heads in this regard,” said Shamnad Basheer, a patent law expert and ministry of human resource development chair at the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata.

He added that such a change can be brought about only by amending the present Trademarks Act.

Under the trademark legislation, as it stands now, the government’s power is limited to appointing another officer to discharge some functions of the registrar (or controller general), as the latter may from time to time authorize. But the controller general remains in charge.

Meanwhile, critics of the government’s move said it would mean a return to the trademark office’s bad old ways. One of these, a patent and trademark agent in Mumbai, who didn’t want to be named due to business reasons, said that there have been at least a dozen cases of trademark officials receiving bribes being caught in the act. The change would “see many of these officers back to their earlier locations”.

“The administrational shuffle is quite vindictive to the strong reforms that the current controller general has initiated in the department in the last one-and-a-half years, and it will shift the system back to its inefficient past,” said Prabudha Ganguly, a Mumbai-based patents and trademarks consultant.

The trademarks office has been dogged with more corruption allegations than the patents office, which makes it even more imperative for the government to bring in a clean and efficient officer from the outside, if it is serious about reforming this office, said Basheer.

“If the government intends to change this scheme, it must do so through an amendment in the proper way. And must ensure that it gets someone from the outside to head up the trademarks division as well,” he added.

In 2008, Mint had investigated through a series of reports, instances of corruption in the IP office, related to the issuance of patents.

“Informal” India and the Romanticisation of Innovation

FICCI's latest newsletter carried an article of mine dealing with grassroots innovation and the need to romanticise innovation. For those interested, here is the text:

“Informal” India and the Romanticisation of Innovation

3 idiots, one of the most tasteful Bollywood flicks this year, was embroiled in a “copyright” controversy involving credits to Chetan Bhagat, the author of the book on which the movie was allegedly based. What has been largely missed, however, is the ‘patent’ significance of the movie. The mysterious Phunsuk Wangdu, played by the inimitable Amir Khan, innovates in his open-air Ladakhi lab and owns over 400 patents!

This imagery will no doubt give patents and innovation a tremendous face lift in India. Particularly so, when most media projections of intellectual property have been far from graceful. Newspaper headlines routinely juxtapose the term “patents” with "murder", "kill" and "exploitation". Yusuf Hamied, the maverick head of Cipla, celebrated as a modern day Robin Hood, claimed in a television interview in 2005 that the introduction of pharmaceutical product patents was sure to cause genocide in India! Bollywood isn’t far behind either: in a flick titled ‘Laaga Chunri Mein Daag’, Rani Mukherjee plays the role of a high class escort and defines patents as an extortionist instrument devised by the West to milk developing countries.[2]

Given that ‘3 Idiots’ boasts a more intelligent script and better performances, Wangdu’s character is more likely to resonate in the minds of the average Indian viewer than a sizzling hooker with strong views on intellectual property. It also helps that Wangdu’s inventions did not involve pharmaceutical patents, a species of patents that are highly contentious owing to their innate potential to jack up drug prices and impact public health.

Since 2005, when India was forced to introduce pharmaceutical patents at the behest of TRIPS, most innovation debates in India have been framed primarily around drugs. Fortunately, Wangdu’s character helps in stripping innovation of its problematic drug centric focus. The inventions showcased in the movie did not stem from multinational corporations, but from poor grass-root innovators, as below:[3]

i) Remya Jose (20), a student from Kerala, created the exercycle-cum-washing-machine.
ii) Jehangir Painter (49), a painter from Maharashtra, put together a scooter-powered flour mill to escape the vagaries of Indian power cuts.
iii) Mohammed Idris (32), a fifth-standard dropout and a barber from Uttar Pradesh, invented a cycle-powered horse clipper.

Luckily for these inventors, their ideas were captured and leveraged by the National Innovation Foundation. This organization, the brainchild of Prof Anil Gupta and Dr R.A. Mashelkar, has already compiled more than 1,40,000 innovations belonging to the rural “informal” poor and virtually demolished the assumption that innovation is the preserve of the urban rich.[4]

Unfortunately for the NIF, the Indian legal regime that is meant to engender innovation continues to mainly favour only “formal” innovations emanating from the rich. This is despite the fact that almost 90% of India’s economy qualifies as “informal”![5] For one, the existing patent registration process is beset with considerable uncertainties and costs (including steep attorney fees), making it well-nigh impossible for a number of our informal creative minds to participate in India’s IP regime. Indeed, a number of such innovators have often found that applications drafted personally by them have failed time and again to meet the stringent requirements of Indian patent law.[6]

Not too surprising, given that India hiked up its patentability threshold considerably, owing to adverse perceptions against pharmaceutical patents. While this is laudable from the point of view of preventing pharmaceutical ever-greening and keeping drug costs down, it is a double edged sword, in that it impacts the patentability of a great number of grassroots innovations, many of which are “incremental” in nature.[7] Illustratively, consider the example of the inventor father son duo, the Appachans’, whose tree-climbing device was so attractive that even botanists from the US were interested.[8] Unfortunately, both father and son died within a week of each other in 2008. While the father held the “parent” patent over this device, the son obtained a patent over a slight improvement. The son’s improvement is generally thought to be a “weak” patent, which may perhaps explain the reluctance of the NIF to take on the Kerala state government that has been violating this patent with impunity.[9]

Owing to the rather severe standards that India’s patents regime now represents (at least on paper), a large number of grass-root innovation may find it difficult to make the cut, leading to a wide “patent” divide. Indeed, if “access” to patented goods is the key issue today, the problem of access to the patent system itself will be the issue of tomorrow!

A Proposed Utility Model System

One way out of this quagmire is to devise a patent like system with an easier registration threshold, a correspondingly weaker set of rights and most importantly, lower costs. Commonly known as the utility model system, this regime has found takers in several countries including a competitor that we in India watch very carefully, China. The latest figures reveal that of the 310,771 utility model applications filed in China in 2009, 99.4% were filed by domestic entities.[10] Contrast this with regular patents, where domestic entities accounted for only about 72.8% of the total number filed in that year.[11] The percentage of domestic patent filings when compared to foreign applications is considerably lower in the case of India[12], but a utility model system has the potential of helping reverse this trend.

However, there are variations amongst the various prevailing models and India must work towards a model that caters to the India milieu. The system must be an affordable and easy-to-use one, where grass-root innovators can participate without necessarily approaching expensive attorneys. Further, given that the low threshold for registration is likely to cause a spike in the number of applications, the corresponding set of rights associated with such registrations must be weaker than the patent system.

The author proposes a tentative model in this regard, as below:

1. An easy to use and affordable registration system, where the only criterion for registration is that the applicant discloses a useful “new technical advance” (NTA).
2. A registered NTA is protected only for 5 years. If the said NTA is commercialized within the first 5 years of registration, the rights holder gains protection for another 5 years.
3. All NTA-s are subject to compulsory licenses and can be used by any third party that wishes to make a product based on this right. The third party would, however, have to pay reasonable royalties to the NTA holder, based on a percentage of sales from the product. These reasonable royalties depend on the value of contribution made by NTA to the final product. This way, the granted right does not have a “blocking” impact on future inventions, in the way that a patent allegedly does today.

One might even have an amended version of the above, whereby a prototype or model of the alleged invention is insisted upon before registering the NTA in question. The model is best explained through a hypothetical. Consider an improved water pump that is made by company “A”. Assume that there are 3 NTA’s that are implicated in the creation of this pump. The NTA’s are registered in the name of X, Y and Z, various “informal” innovators. Assume that X’s “inventive” contribution to the pump is 30%. Similarly Y contributes 30% and Z contributes 20%. A’s inventive contribution is 20%. Apart from this, it invests money and other resources in creating a commercialized version of the pump. Let us peg this investment and risk at 50% of the total value of the product. The relative contributions to the total product therefore would be:

i) A: 50% (+20% of 50%): .5x + .1x=.6x
ii) X: 30% of 50%: .3 x/2=.15x
iii) Y: 30% of 50%: .3 x/2=.15x
iv) Z: 20% of 50%: .2x/2=.1x

Assume that A now makes Rs 1,00,000 as its profits in the first year. The respective shares will be as under:
i) A: Rs 60,000
ii) X: Rs 15,O00
iii) Y: Rs 15,000
iv) Z: Rs 10,000

The advantage with such a model is that it not only creates more determinacy (as the validity of an NTA is easier to objectively ascertain) but also solves the problem with patent hold ups and thereby fosters greater commercialization of new and valuable ideas. It avoids things like patent trolls and other mystical and mythical problems now associated with the current patent regime. It must be borne in mind that utility model systems in other countries have not always been run-away successes.[13]

But we could at least begin to think along these lines and devise a system that would most appropriately address the Indian milieu. Once grassroots and other informal innovators become familiar with a utility model like system, it may perhaps make it easier for them to gain access to the tougher patent system. In other words, the utility model system has the potential to serve as a “stepping stone” of sorts for such informal innovators.

Romanticisation of Innovation

The Indian government must also take other steps to romanticize innovation and ensure that it becomes a mantra chanted by one and all. In particular, much like the US, a National Inventors’ Hall of Fame to celebrate India’s most well known inventors, would be an excellent start.

Similarly, we also ought to award national medals of innovation to our most promising innovators. Such awards are statutorily mandated in the US through the AMERICA Competes Act. Although the government appears to have drawn inspiration from this Act in framing a tentative Innovation bill, it surprisingly left out this important feature from the Bill.[14] Only a conscious effort at romanticising innovation will help us in leveraging the one advantage that we have over the rest of the world: a large and creative work force. Bollywood has already taken the first step in this direction by giving us a hero who makes innovation look cool. Can we now leverage this sentiment to ensure that life imitates art?

Footnotes:

[1] The author thanks Shouvik Guha for his valuable inputs on this piece.

[2] See Shamnad Basheer, Bollywood and Patents: A Hooker’s Narrative of “Exploitation”!, SpicyIP.

[3] See Samar Halarnkar, Top Grosser 3 Idiots to fund Real Life Inventors, Hindustan Times, Mumbai, December 31, 2009.

[4] For details about this organization, see http://www.nif.org.in/ (Last visited February 26, 2010). The objectives of the Foundation include, inter alia, to help India become an innovative and creative society.. and a global leader in sustainable technologies by scouting, spawning and sustaining grassroots innovations . See http://www.nif.org.in/. NIF has 140,000 inventions from 545 districts in its database, generating 220 patent applications in India and one in the US.. See Samar Halarnkar, Innovation Network plans Giant Leap on the Back of 3 Idiots.

[5] “The “informal” economy either lies outside the scope of state regulation, or is officially subject to state regulation but nevertheless does not operate according to the rules that state regulation officially prescribes. In the former sense it is also known as ‘unregistered’, and defined as consisting of firms with electricity but under 10 workers or without electricity and over 20 workers (very rare outside agriculture). See Barbara Harriss White, India’s Informal Economy – Facing the 21st Century, Paper for the Indian Economy Conference, Cornell University, 19th and 20th April, 2002. See also Shamnad Basheer, Creating ‘Informal’ IP Norms.

[6] Interview with P.H. Kurian, Controller-General of Patents, dated February 26, 2010.

[7] See see Shamnad Basheer, Patent Oppositions in India: The "Efficacy" of Section 3(d)

[8] See MG Radhakrishnan, Fruit of Labour , India Today, June 26, 2008.

[9] Personal interview in July 2008 with MJ Joseph Appachan’s wife and lawyers .

[10] See http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/statistics/gnwsznb/2009/201001/t20100127_488773.html.

[11] Id.

[12] In the financial year 2007-08, 35, 218 applications had been filed in India, out of which, 6,296 had been filed by domestic applicants, which is about 18% of the total. See Patenting Landscape in India 2009, Evalueserve Whitepaper.

[13] See generally Uma Suthersanen, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries, February 2006, UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development.

[14] For a draft version of the Bill, see http://dst.gov.in/draftinnovationlaw.pdf. Also see Shamnad Basheer, “Making India Innovative: An Indian Innovation Act”, SpicyIP.

Transparent Kurian Illumines Again

In a development that has significant ramifications for the improvement of transparency in the Indian patent process, PH Kurian, the Controller General resurrected an old order mandating that all correspondence between a patent applicant and the office (during the course of prosecution) be made available to the public. The order reads thus:

"...after the publication of an application for a Patent u/s. ll(A), all the offices shall make available on the request of any person, the application on any form or otherwise on a plain paper, copies of all the letters/correspondence between the office and the applicant/agent or vice-versa along with the application and complete specification and provisional specification together with the drawings, if any, on payment of prescribed charges provided in the first schedule".

Apparently, the old order had been issued by Chandrasekhar, the ex Controller in 2006, but had been largely forgotten. Which is why Kurian's practice of opening up his administration to the public and putting up all his orders on the website for public viewing is an excellent practice.

We're particularly pleased with this development, since many of the requests that we put forward in our public petition to the IPO are slowly bearing fruit. Specifically, we had requested that all prosecution history be made public. And that barring the confidential reports of examiners under section 144, every other document relating to the patent process ought to be made public. We even prepared a note outlining why such publishing of information would be perfectly legal under Indian law.

When I look back, I realise that SpicyIP did not have many good things to say about the Indian patent office, ever since we began blogging in 2005. However, PH Kurian's appointment changed our perception..and indeed the perception of many an individual that had hitherto been watching the decay of the IPO with some concern. CH Unni brings out some of these aspects in his excellent interview with the IPO Chief.

A large part of why the Kurian administration appeals to us specifically is its sustained focus on transparency. For an increase in transparency will inevitably bring more skeletons out of the closet and engender more accountability. And is perhaps the cheapest way of achieving a more accountable and efficient administration.

Since his appointment, the Controller General has issued the following "public" orders to further transparency. Copies of these are available on the IPO website and I want to thank Prakruthi Gowda for painstakingly putting together this list:

Circular No.CG/GE/2009/171 dated 17.03.2009: The Circular banned the entry of retired officials of the IPO from visiting the IPO office and working as unauthorized agents.

Circular No.CG/GE/2009/282 dated 26.03.2009: This circular stated that all patent agents and lawyers would be issued identity cards with photographs. These identity cards were to be produced for the purposes of entering IPO premises.

Circular No.CG/PG/Circular/2009/223 dated 26.05.2009: The circular sought to prevent unauthorized and illegitimate persons from prosecuting applications in IP offices. The circular instructed officials to ensure the bona fides of the persons prosecuting.

Circular No.CG/PG/Circular/2009/30 dated 03.06.2009: This circular directs all controllers to issue "speaking" orders while rejecting pre-grant oppositions and consequently granting a patent.

Circular No.CG/PG/Circular/2009/158 dated 19.06.2009: The circular requires all Group A & B Officials of the Indian Patent Office to give a list of their close relatives (close relatives include father, mother, sister, brother, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, co-brother, sister-in-law and first cousins) who are Patent agents, Trademark agents or practicing IP lawyers. The circular stated that this was to ensure that such officers do not deal with their close relatives in any official matters directly.

Circular No.CG/PG/2009/179 dated 24.12.2009: The Circular requires all patentees and licensees to furnish information in Form 27 on the working of patents as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rules. The circular mandated submission of the information before 31st March 2010.

Circular No.CG/PG/Office order/2010/233 dated 12.01.2010: The order noted that the inspection of documents as per Section 11(A)(6)(b) of the Patents Act read with Rule 27 was restricted only to the complete specification, abstract and drawings as filed along with the application. Copies of the amended specification if any were not being allowed for inspection and copies were not allowed to be supplied to the public. This practice contravened the Patents Act and therefore had to be discarded.

This Circular therefore clarifies that the right procedure under Rule 27 is to provide the specification as on the date of a Rule 27 application and not the specification as filed along with the original patent application.

Guest Post: To be or not to be 3(d)

As promised, the Spicy IP readers are yet in the line for a treat in the form of the following exciting and insightful Guest Post from Suchita Saigal, a name familiar to any of the followers of this blog:

SECTION 3(D) –AGAIN?

In a recent article DNA reported that, several companies were filing patent applications for various forms of the same substance. The problem being that most of these forms did not satisfy the enhanced efficacy test laid down in section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. The example which follows is borrowed from the article and aims to illustrate how this new scheme works, “In September 2009, a patent application for AIDS drug darunavir was rejected as it did not meet patentability criteria laid down in the Indian Patent Act… But one patent rejection is not the end of the story for J&J… Darunavir still has six other patent applications for various forms floating in patent offices across India.” As is evident from the example, the concern which arises in this situation is that there is a very high likelihood that such practices could lead to grant of patents for non-patentable innovations. Apart from issues under section 3(d) of the Patents Act, there are other issues such as evergreening, which arise in this context.
The problem becomes more serious in light of the allegations published by Mint in December 2008 article with regard to the grant of substandard patents by the patent offices. The article states that such substandard patents (which fall foul of section 3(d)) are being granted as a result of a corrupt nexus between so-called patent agents, or lawyers employed by drug firms to manage their patent application process, and patent officials.

IT MUST BE THE BIG BAD MNC…

Interestingly, this new game plan isn’t used solely by the big bad MNCs, Indian innovators are also adopting this technique. The Mint report accounts for the likes of Cipla Limited having made use of this method to file patents for mere modifications. It is important to point out that, while one understands the media support for the Indian pharmaceutical companies in their fight against the International MNCs to maintain their market share, such support is clearly going the wrong way when the international MNCs are continuously painted in a negative light in the press but the Indian pharma companies get away with murder. Such leniency towards the Indian pharma companies does not help anyone. There is a need to go after all companies who are guilty of misusing processes, whether Indian or international.

NOT THE MNC, MUST BE THE GOVERNMENT!

All of this can easily be brushed aside with the usual rant which would read as follows, there are only four patent offices, all these offices are extremely short staffed and most importantly, there is no proper infrastructure to ensure effective communication between offices. Mr. Kurian himself in an interview with the Hindu admits all of these issues. All these problems stem from lack of planning by the legislature in the earlier stages. Though the laws are in place, the acts have been amended, the legislature clearly has not thought ahead to ensure that the infrastructure requirements are in place to meet the challenges which will be posed by enacting and enforcing additional laws, measures and regulations. Hence, with increased number of applications, devious methods employed by applicants and the poor infrastructure, the Indian patent officials are clearly fighting a losing battle. Even though the patent office is taking steps like upgrading the IPIRS, these measures are simply too small and tad too late in time. One can’t really blame the patent office for this debacle. In fact, the government might want to think of a ‘look before you leap’ strategy.
However, given allegations of the existence of a corrupt nexus and a generally non transparent process, the excuses given above work as a blind screen to hide the actual issues. While, the Mumbai patent office has undertaken investigations after the publication of Mint’s report, the accountancy levels on a general basis are still not satisfactory. As Shamnad stated in his interview to Mint, “If [the allegations of corruption and grant of sub-standard patents is] true, this lack of application of mind casts serious doubt on the level of scrutiny in examination and the situation needs to be remedied.”
It should be noted that none of this is to take away from the excellent work being done by Mr. Kurian, who is striving to increase the transparency and accountability levels at the Indian Patent offices. The best way forward is for the government to step up and support Mr. Kurian in hiring more manpower and having more resources and training.

WAIT, WHAT ABOUT THE LAW?

The Indian Patents Act allows for pre- and post– grant oppositions to be filed against patent applications and patents granted (post grant oppositions can be filed with the concerned patent office until 12 months after the grant of patent). Shamnad's post titled, "Patent Oppositions in India: The "Efficacy" of Section 3(d)" elaborately explains the entire opposition process and its implications under the Patent Act. In the present case our concern is that, while the law allows for filing of oppositions to the grant of patents, we are not using this process effectively. As the Mint article provides, there were no pre- or post-grant opposition to the award of any of the 10 patents granted for mere modifications. Again it is the government which needs to step up and think of ways to incentivize the usage of the opposition processes under the Patents Act.

MEASURE OF SUCCESS

Some time back while going over some archived articles published by Managing Intellectual Property I came across the article, “All Eyes on India”. The article has quite a lot of fanfare relating to the 2005 amendment to the Patents Act and how India is stepping into the brave new world. The interesting bit comes under the heading modernization, where the author says that, “..the Indian Patent Office is doing a great job. The Indian Patent Office has granted a record 15,262 patents between 2007 and 2008, which is more than double the 7,539 patents granted between 2006 and 2007…” Note that this article isn’t alone in measuring success of the system on the basis of numbers; this method is adopted in several other instances (please discount the effects of the credit crunch while reading the report). However, any such measure of success loses relevance when the issues of corruption, lack of transparency and grant of sub-standard patents comes forth. Any assessment of success needs to be done on the basis of the quality of work by the Patent offices and not the quantity, simply because assessing success on quantity creates a perverse incentive to grant as many patents as possible, which obviously isn't what we are looking for!

To end on a positive note: A spokesperson for Teva (one of the companies involved in this entire fiasco) stated that “Teva has faith in the Indian Patent Office, which is certainly well acquainted with the Indian Patent law…” Really? You think so!Oh well…
(Image from here)
P.s. I would like to thank Shamnad and Sai for their comments on the post and for tolerating me constantly pestering them.

Reforms at the IP Office

Mint has newly launched a blog titled Vanishing Point which will focus “on intellectual property law to analyse issues that come up at the point where law converges with technology”. Srividhya Raghavan who is a Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma, College of Law and is specializing in intellectual property and C.H Unnikrishnan, a national writer with Mint who has been consistently covering intellectual property news will be writing on the blog.

The first piece on the blog titled “Fanning winds of change at the IP Office” brought out the influential role of the media in reforming the Intellectual Property Office. The national campaign for transparency was carried out by SpicyIP & Mint. The government appointed a civil servant as the Controller General for the first time. The piece notes the numerous reforms initiated by Mr. Kurian in the IPO after his appointment.

Reforms introduced by Mr. Kurian include the introduction of a fresh system of assigning patent examination to expert groups and revamping the online database of the IPO (Click here for a previous post on the reforms). In addition to this he has also struck down strongly on corruption at the patent office (Click here for a post on the same). The piece concludes by noting that these reforms should be accompanied by the grant of increased financial and operational autonomy to the IPO.

Image from here.

SpicyIP Tidbit: Patent Office to make updated patent specifications available under Rule 27

The Controller General of Patents – P.H.Kurian – has issued an Office Circular today stating that the latest updated patent specifications will be available, under Rule 27 of the Patent Rules, for inspection and that copies of the same will be provided to the public.

Rule 27 of the Patent Rules which provides for the 'Inspection of published applications' states the following: “After the date of publication of the application under Section 11A, the application together with the complete specification and provisional specification, if any, drawing, if any, and the abstract filed in respect of the application may be inspected at the appropriate office by making a written request to the Controller on payment of fees specified in the First Schedule in that behalf”.

The usual practice of the patent office, under Rule 27, was to provide the public with only a copy of the patent specification, as filed, even if the patent specification had been changed consequently. The latest Office Circular clarifies that the right procedure under Rule 27 is to provide the specification as on the date of a Rule 27 application and not the specification as filed along with the original patent application.

This latest Office Circular will have the effect of greatly increasing transparency at the patent office at the pre-grant stage.

Reviewing the Indian Patent Regime After 5 Years

Jyothi Datta of the Hindu Business Line has an interesting write up, documenting reactions after 5 years of the introduction of the pharmaceutical product patent regime in India. She also has a separate write up documenting an interview with the IPO Controller General, PH Kurian where he states some of the latest figures pertaining to patent applications/grants from India.

Here is what she writes in the five year review piece:

"It was on the eve of January 2005 that an Ordinance was issued to amend the Patent Act 1970 and bring in a regime that would honour product patents.

Five years on, if there is an agreement among stake-holders of the pharmaceutical industry - a sector covered by the Act - it is their unhappiness with the implementation of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.

But the agreement ends there, as criticism of the Act goes along the expected divide of the domestic drug industry's outlook, as opposed to that of the multinationals.

Though the amended law has been implemented on the ground, it has not used flexibilities provided by world trade norms to the optimum level, says an IP expert. While Section 3 (d) of the Act has been used to block frivolous patent applications, there still is room for interpretation, he observes. Besides, there are too few patent examiners to clear the manifold increase in patent applications, he adds.

Over 35,000 patent applications were filed in 2007-08, of which over 15,000 were granted, says the Indian Patent Office. This is an increase from 12,000-odd patent applications in 2003-04, of which about 2,400 were granted. And by its own admission, there are only about 160 patent examiners – and even this is dwindling, says a patent expert familiar with the development.

Bringing in the product patent law is one thing, but there still is no domestic eco-system available to implement it on the ground, observes Mr Ranjit Shahani, President, Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India, and head of Novartis in India.

Glivec case

Novartis' patent application on its blood cancer drug Glivec has become a bench-mark case under the amended regime. Glivec was the first pharmaceutical product to get a green signal from the Indian Patent Office in the run-up to the amended regime in 2005. Subsequently, the Patent Office rejected Glivec's patent application in 2006, and ever since it has seen a long and litigious journey. The case awaits legal proceedings, now in the Supreme Court.

IP expert Dr Prabuddha Ganguli says five years is too long to set right anomalies in the amended law, on compulsory licensing and disclosures on geographical origin of biological material, to mention a few.

“We are losing time,” he says, with the debate taking an emotive tone, rather than a rational one.

But IP expert Mr Shamnad Basheer feels it is too early to judge the Act. However, the mechanism to oppose patent applications seems to have worked, he observes. Of 9,719 pharma applications filed between 2005 and 2008, he says, only 34 were challenged. And 25 of these resulted in rejections, with the patent applicant winning in only 9 cases, he adds. Why the oppositions were few remains unclear, he says, despite India's vibrant generic sector and active non-government organisation community that oppose frivolous pharma patents.

But what is clear, say industry stakeholders, that the there is the need for a better equipped patent and judicial infrastructure to handle the increasing number of patent applications and possible challenges.

Patent Oppositions in India: The "Efficacy" of Section 3(d)

Last week, CH Unnikrishnan of the Mint reported on a study that I had conducted with my research associate, Souvik Guha. Let me highlight some of the findings of this study prior to moving on to Unni's report.

After reviewing a slew of information from the Indian patent office website, we found as follows:

i) The total number of pharmaceutical applications filed between 2005 and 2008 were around 9719.

ii) The number of pharmaceutical patents granted during the above time frame was around 2734.

iii) Of the 9719 pharma applications filed, only 34 were challenged—an abysmal .3%!

iv) Out of the 34 challenges, one was a post grant oppn (in favour of Roche covering Pegasus) and the remaining 33 were pre-grant challenges.

v) 25 out of 34 oppositions resulted in rejections i.e. a significantly high ratio of 73.5%! The patent applicant won in only 9 cases (9/34 or 26.5% of the time)

v) 20 out of the 25 rejections above were based on section 3(d). In other words, 80% of the rejections were based on section 3(d), indicating the "efficacy" of this controversial section.

However, barring a Madras High Court decision in the controversial Novartis case which attempted to interpret section 3(d) in the context of a constitutional challenge, there has been no case that interprets the scope and ambit of section 3(d). The Supreme Court of India lost a fabulous opportunity to do so in Roche vs Cipla; and it is now hoped that we'll have some clear standards emerging from the Supreme Court in the Novartis "Glivec" matter (the Business Standard reports that notices have been issued to the Indian government and other parties in this case).

Analysis:

It is not immediately clear as to what accounts for the rather paltry number of oppositions filed...a mere .3% of the total number of pharma applications were opposed! Particularly since India has a vibrant generic sector and a very active NGO community that opposes frivolous pharma patents.

One explanation, though a highly improbable one is that many of these applications were “strong” and meritorious ones. Another is that the patent office website has not included many of these oppositions. Going by the various errors that we spotted on the Indian patent office, this is more probable. Though we find it unlikely that the numbers omitted by the patent office could be so significant as to increase the opposition numbers substantially.

Lack of Awareness?

Another reason could be that the generic industry and public health groups are still coming to grips with this powerful mechanism and are taking some time to leverage it. Some may also falsely expect the patent office itself to do its job well. They have to understand that patent offices are fallible and make mistakes, even in countries like the US and EU, where the offices are better staffed than India. Therefore, they must come forward and leverage the opposition mechanism to help the Indian patent office make the right decision, granting patents to only meritorious inventions.

Perhaps the government ought to set up a committee to study the opposition mechanism and why its been under-utilised. It ought to undertake more awareness drives around patents and the opposition mechanism, and provide logistical support, where possible, particularly to non profit NGO's.

Is the Opposition Mechanism Being Gamed?

There are also allegations that the opposition process is being gamed and unduly delayed, with multiple challenges to the same patent application by the same entity, albeit under different names. Paradoxical perhaps that although the total number of applications that are attacked are fairly few, the ones that are attacked involve multiple opponents! The government ought to also investigate this "gaming" allegation in a bid to better the opposition mechanism.

Other Oppositions

This study is still in draft form and we will publish the final version soon. Prior to reproducing Unni's report below, I want to clarify that the term ("other oppositions") used by him actually refers to a decision made by the patent office after hearing the patent applicant (under sections 14 and 15). It is therefore not really an "opposition" but a normal prosecution by the patent office, where they opt to hear the party to satisfy themselves on the merits of the patent application.

Here is Unni's report:

"Three patent provisions that have come under flak from foreign companies and governments for not being compliant with global intellecutual property regimes have actually helped India weed out frivolous patents since 2005, when the country moved to a new patent regime.

This is the finding of a study conducted by the intellectual property rights (IPR) law department of National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) at Kolkata.

The study shows that these three provisions were the basis of rejecting seven out of 10 patents rejected in the area of drugs, and 15 out of 20 rejected in other areas.

However, the study also shows that very few patent applications are being challenged at all under these provisions, an indication of the reluctance of Indian companies to take on Big Pharma, which is behind most of the applications.

While a lobby group for domestic drug companies said the findings highlight the large number of frivolous claims being made by Big Pharma, a lobby group for foreign drug firms said the numbers weren’t significant enough to make inferences.

The three provisions relate to pre-grant opposition, post- grant opposition, and section 3(d) that prevents the issue of a patent for any known substance or concept unless the basis of the new patent claim makes the product’s efficacy substantially higher.

All three have been criticized by foreign companies and governments since 2005 for allegedly being non-compliant with the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights dispensation of the World Trade Organization.

The study, however, shows that the three have been critical in filtering out frivolous patent claims.

In all, 58 patent applications were opposed between 2005 and 2008: 34 under the pre- and post-grant opposition provisions; and 24 under other options.

Of these, 41 were rejected: 27 under section 3(d).

However, these numbers pale in comparison with the total number of pharmaceutical applications filed. According to the study, 9,719 pharmaceutical applications were filed between 2005 and 2008; of these 2,734 patents, or less than one in three, were granted. The rest are being processed.

Interestingly, most of the 25 patent applications rejected under the pre- and post-grant opposition category were made by foreign drug makers, including Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc. and AstraZeneca SA, according to Mint’s own analysis of the rejections.

The analysis also showed that most of the oppositions were filed by Indian drug makers such as Cipla Ltd, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Torrent Pharma Ltd.

Other challenges came from non-profit patient groups such as Mumbai-based Cancer Patients’ Aid Association, Sankalp and Positive People Living with HIV/AIDS.

Shamnad Basheer, who led the study, along with Shouvik Guha, a research associate at NUJS finds the statistics on patent opposition inadequate. “It is pitiable that despite such a large number of pharmaceutical applications filed, only around 34 were challenged, an abysmal 0.3%,” he said.

A representative of a lobby group for local firms said the numbers highlighted both the need for increased awareness among local companies and activist groups, as well the large number of possibly frivolous patents that were being filed.

“One can see only a few Indian companies coming forward to oppose such frivolous patents. The local industry and the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) should be made more aware of these provisions to use these tools very effectively,” said D.G. Shah, secretary general of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance.

“At the same time, it is very important to look at the rate of rejections, which is very high corresponding to the number of oppositions, and it shows there are alarming number of frivolous patents being claimed in the country,” he added.

Shah’s opposite number had a diametrically opposite point of view.

“It is too early to draw statistical trends from an implementation of a law where all the participants are on a steep learning curve,” RanjitShahani, president of Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India, an industry association that represents foreign drug makers in the domestic market, wrote in an email.

Mint couldn’t immediately ascertain why few patent claims are opposed. Shah said it could be because of poor understanding of these provisions by local companies and patient groups.

P.H. Kurian, India’s controller general of patents designs and trademarks, agrees.

“There is a need for increased awareness on these provisions, which are strong tools to block frivolous patents, though the small number of opposition cases also indicate that the department’s high level of scrutiny on frivolous claims lead to rejection of many such applications at the examination stage itself, even without a formal opposition,” he said.

Basheer, however, has a few other possible explanations. One, which he admits may be improbable, is that many of the patent claims are “strong”.

Another is that the patent office’s website, the source of data for the study, may not have uploaded data on other patents that were opposed.

“Going by the various errors that we spotted on the Indian patent office, this is more probable, though we find it unlikely that the numbers omitted by the patent office could be so significant as to increase the numbers substantially,” Basheer said.

Some of the patent claims that fell to pre-grant oppositions.

Gilead Sciences Inc.: HIV drug Tenofovir, Sep 2009

Novartis AG: Combination of valsartan and amilodipine, Mar 2009

Novartis AG: Alfa crystal form of its blood cancer drug imatinib mesylate, Mar 2009

Greaves Cotton Ltd: Improved diesel oil engine, Mar 2009

Pfizer Inc.: Cardiac drug atorvastatin and amilodipine combination, Feb 2009

AstraZeneca SA: Patent application for lung cancer drug Iressa, Nov 2007

Eli Lilly: Application for osteoporosis drug Forteo, Sep 2007

Novartis AG: Lung cancer drug Glivec, Jan 2006

ps: image from here.

Guest Post: The Jamnagar Petrol GI Case

SpicyIP is delighted to bring you a guest post from Latha R Nair, a leading IP practitioner in India. Ms Nair, who has written occasionally for the blog, is a partner with one of India's top IP firms, K&S Partners, based in the Delhi/NCR area. Apart from handling matters relating to protection and enforcement of trademarks and copyrights, she advises clients on TRIPS related issues, protection of geographical indications in India and abroad, domain name disputes and intellectual property aspects of the entertainment industry and the Internet. In particular, she has been advising the Government of India in the protection of various geographical indications including Basmati and Darjeeling. She has also co-authored a seminal work on geographical indications, titled “Geographical Indications – A Search for Identity” published by Lexis Nexis Butterworths India, which is a first work of its kind on the subject. For a detailed profile, do visit an earlier post we have run by Ms Nair.

Today's post is about the dispute around the GI application filed, and recently abandoned, by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), which Ms Nair sheds some light on for readers here:

THE CURIOUS CASE OF JAMNAGAR PETROL GI

A report in the Mint recently states that Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) has abandoned its applications for registering ‘Jamnagar’ as a geographical indication (GI) for petrol, diesel, LPG etc. The report quotes P H Kurian, Controller of Patents Trademarks and Geographical indications as having stated that the applications were abandoned by the GI Registry for lack of prosecution on the part of RIL, the applicant. It is a relief to know that wisdom has eventually dawned upon RIL. Should we say, it is better late than never?! (Image from here: http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/gujarat/districts/jamnagar.htm)

A perusal of the statement of case of GI application No. 38 for ‘Jamnagar’ filed by RIL which was advertised in Journal No.12 (download: 1.5 MB) would reveal the various errors in the application that survived acceptance and proceeded unhindered till the stage of advertisement.

To begin with, the applications filed by RIL were contrary to Section 11 (1) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 [ ‘the GI Act’] which states as follows:

“Any association of persons or producers or any organization or authority established by or under any law for the time being in force representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous of registering a geographical indication in relation to such goods shall apply in writing to the Registrar in such form and in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed for the registration of the geographical indication.”

One of the puzzling questions in the Jamnagar applications was, who were these producers whose collective interest RIL was representing through these applications. For example, in the statement of case, against the column “List of association of persons/ Producers”, RIL had entered, “to be provided on request”. However, under the column, “Description of Goods”, RIL stated that it was the largest producer of petrol and that the Jamnagar manufacturing complex was the largest industrial project set up “at a cost of 142.5 billion” (presumably INR)! Did the mighty RIL really need to get a GI registration to boost the sales of its petrol and LPG?

Further, under the column, “Specification” RIL has listed the ISO standards met by its petrol, fuel, LPG and diesel. Under Section 11(2) of the GI Act, an application is to contain a statement as to how the GI serves to designate the goods as originating from the concerned region in respect of specific quality, reputation or other characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors. Once again, under the column “Uniqueness”, the mention of the compliance with the ISO standards reappears. When one could have thought that this petrol could save all the energy problems of our planet, there is no mention of any unique properties possessed by the goods in the application by RIL except the compliance with ISO standards!

The legal innovation and creativity in the application did not end there. Under the column “Proof of origin [Historical records]” RIL states as follows:

“In 1991, the Government of India allowed the investments from the private sector, in this field. Heavy investment has been made in the less favoured remote area which has resulted in the improvement of local rural area and paved way for the retention of the rural population in this area and it helps in the rural development. The applicant in a record time of 15 days after the historic heavy cyclonic hit on 8th June 1998 repaired the extensive damage and brought back the normalcy”

While RIL certainly deserves more than a pat on the back for the heroic deeds of repairing the damage to the plant (which is, by the way, the private property of RIL) in a fortnight, one fails to see the historical records that are hidden in the said paragraph!

Mercifully, the advertisements in the GI journal led to two oppositions filed by two different opponents. One shudders to imagine how the world IP community would have viewed the Indian GI protection process, if these remained unopposed and proceeded to registration!

From the perspective of an IP practitioner, the fact that these applications were filed by a private entity to further its commercial monopolistic interests raises several concerns for the direction of the GI protection process in India, which is still in the nascent stages. Are we game to register anything that has a geographical name as a GI? At least, the minimum standards stipulated under the GI Act should not be overlooked by all concerned. While augmenting numbers may not be a bad thing, we must not lose sight of the broad objects of protecting a GI, namely, preserving the collective community interests of the producers and protecting consumers from deception. An objective and dispassionate soul searching is warranted to see if we are on the right track while filing applications in respect of anything that sounds like a geographical name to be protected as a GI. Failure to appreciate this could eventually harm and dilute the process of protection of GIs in India leaving the stake holders of the innumerable genuine GI products without an access to realize the economic potential in these products.

[The author is a partner with the Gurgaon based IP law firm K&S Partners. The views are personal.]

Indian "Bayh Dole" Conference at NUJS in September

Details of a Conference that the IP Chair at NUJS (along with IPTLS and Share) is organising on the 12th of September at the NUJS Auditorium, Salt Lake Kolkata. Registration is free. However, if you wish to attend, please email Prakruthi Gowda (prakruthipgowda@gmail.com) indicating your name, designation etc.

Publicly Funded Patents and Technology Transfer: A Review of the Indian “Bayh Dole” Bill

In January 2009, the government introduced the Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008 in the Rajya Sabha. The bill is currently undergoing scrutiny by a Parliamentary select committee, after which it will be placed before the two houses of Parliament. The Indian bill is based to some degree on the US Bayh-Dole Act, which according to The Economist unlocked "all the inventions and discoveries that had been made in laboratories throughout the US with the help of taxpayers' money" and one that helped "reverse America's precipitous slide into industrial irrelevance."

This conference will aim to generate more awareness around the Bill and what is stands for. For one, the Bill is not an instrument that enables university patenting for the first time. Rather, under the present legal regime (most notably the patents act), all institutes and researchers working with such institutes are free to patent the results of their research, irrespective of whether or not such research comes out public funding (unless there is a contractual bar by the funding agency). Such protection of publicly funded research through patents and subsequent use is not specifically regulated and scientists and institutes can use their patents in whatever way they wish (subject to safeguards under current Indian patent law and other laws such as competition law). Therefore, the Bill presents a great opportunity to regulate publicly funded research and patenting activities associated with this for the first time.

The conference will examine the framework of the current Indian bill, with a view to helping improve it. In particular, the conference will try and examine the current structure of university research and technology licensing in India and see if the Bill can be tailored better to help promote the permeation of more university research to society in the form of useful products/services and/or knowledge transfer. The conference will also examine whether, and to what extent, concerns of public interest can be addressed in the present bill. Illustratively, it will seek ways in which the Bill can promote more non-exclusive licensing, which in turns is likely to enable a wider utilisation of publicly funded research. It will also examine whether, and to what extent, the current Bill can be improved to promote more transparency in publicly funded research (and the results thereto) by creating a list of public funds, the recipients, the usage of such funds and the dissemination of such research through technology and knowledge transfer to the public.

Lastly, the conference will aim to iron out some of the creases in the current wordings of the Bill, creases that are likely to lead to litigious waste.

DRAFT PROGRAM

1. Welcome Introduction: Prof (Dr) MP Singh, Vice Chancellor, NUJS (9.00 am)

2. Keynote Address: Dr MK Bhan, Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, Govt of India (9.15 am and 9.40 am)

3. Overview of the Issues: Prof Shamnad Basheer, Ministry of HRD Chair, NUJS (9.45 am to 10.10 am)

Session 1: Bayh Dole and the International Experience

1. A Review of the US Bayh Dole and Lessons for India: Professor Josh Sarnoff, Amercian University (10.10 to 10.30 am)

2. Global “Bayh Dole” Type Models and Lessons for India: Susan Finston, Founder, BayhDole 25 (10.40 to 11.00 am)

Coffee Break: 11.10 to 11.30 am

Session 2: Patents and Technology Transfer in India

1. "Drivers of academic research in India and the role of IPR: Some Econometric Evidence" Amit Shovon Ray, Professor of Economics, Centre for International Trade and Development, JNU Amit Shovon Ray, Professor of Trade, JNU, Delhi (11.30 to 11.50 am)

2. Patenting and Technology Transfer: The CSIR Experience: Zakir Thomas (12.00 am to 12.20 am)

3. Patenting and Technology Transfer: The IIT Kharagpur Experience: Dr Vivekanandan, Dean, Rajiv Gandhi School of law, IIT Kharagpur (12.30 pm to 12.50 pm)

Lunch: 1.00 am to 2.00 pm

Session 3: The Triple Helix Model and Technology Transfer: Evolving a Framework for Developing Countries

The Triple Helix Model: An Assesment: Shaswat Purohit, Franklin Pearce Law Center (2.00 pm to 2.20 pm)

The Technology Transfer Eco System: Ground Realities: Parthiban Srinivasan, Founder, Patent Eagle (2.20 to 2.50 pm)

Coffee Break: 3.00 to 3.20 pm

Session 4: Specific Issues with the Indian Publicly Funded IP Legislation

1. Implications of extending the Bayh Dole concept to copyrights and trademarks: Dr NS Gopalakrishnan (3.30 pm to 3.50 pm)

2. Roundtable Discussion on specific aspects of the Indian Bill : Chaired by Shamnad Basheer: 4.00 to 5.30 pm

Moderators: Mr PH Kurian, Controller General of Patents

Ameet Datta, Partner, Luthra and Luthra

CH Unnikrishnan, IP Journalist, Mint

Venue: NUJS, Salt Lake, Sector III, Kolkata

Date: 12^th September, 2009

Registration is free. However, if you wish to attend, please email Prakruthi Gowda (prakruthipgowda@gmail.com) indicating your name, designation etc.

Our Sincere Gratitude:

We thank the following for their generous contributions, as a result of which we've been able to put this conference together:

1. Patent Eagle, a leading patent analytics firm

2. Luthra and Luthra, a leading full service law firm

3. Sai Krishna Associates, a leading IP litigation firm

4. Lex Orbis, a leading patent firm