Search

This article discusses the merger doctrine in copyright law in India. It identifies the merger doctrine as an application of the idea-expression dichotomy. It reflects on the application of the doctrine in The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford vs. Narendera Publishing House and Ors by the High Court. In addition, the article indicates the promotion of intellectual growth as a primary objective of copyright law.

The article probes into the process of design registration in India. Under the Designs Act of 2000, companies need to prepare a representation of a design along with a statement of novelty in order to specify the claim. Design registration requirements include a feature of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or color, application of the design to an article and appeal to and judgment by the eye.

The article discusses the Span Diagnostic v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design case wherein the appellant brought appeals to the High Court of Delhi against a particular decision of the Controller. An opposition was filed against the grant of patent to a device under section 25 of the Patents Act. Under the 2002 and 2005 Amendments Act, decisions regarding pre-grant opposition are not appealable. The High Court ruled that all appeals against the Controller's decision shall be transferred to the Appellate Board.

The article deals with the controversy raised by the Drug Controller General of India's (DCGI) plan to provide patent linkage to drug regulation. Patent linkage refers to the practice of linking the marketing approval for general drugs to the original patented drug's patent status. The pharmaceutical sector will be affected by the DCGI plan since the convenience of reverse engineering the drug to conduct bio-equivalence researches and apply for marketing approval will disappear.

The article addresses the scope of the rights of the patentee under the Indian Patents Act 1970 in relation to the presumption of validity of the patent duly granted by the patent office. The revocation of patents on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement is subject to the provisions of the Act and under the grounds as enumerated therein according to the section 64 of the Act. It is also noted that based on the provisions of the Act, patentee rights have been provided subject to other provisions contained in the Act.

The article offers information on the use of temporary injunction to relieve intellectual property infringement. It states that a temporary injunction under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 is the most effective and common solution because it prevent the opposite party from continuing the alleged act of infringement. It mentions that to make out a prima facie case, the plaintiff needs to convince the court on the balance of probabilities that the act of the other party is infringing his/her rights.