http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/12676 Search the Channel search http://nopr.niscair.res.in/simple-search http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/12694 Title: TRIPS, WTO and IPR: Geographical Indication Protection in India <br/> <br/>Authors: Nair, M D <br/> <br/>Abstract: The World Trade Organization (WTO) was set up in 1995 and has been the custodian of all matters related to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement endorsed by 153 member countries. WTO is therefore the most important body which monitors and influences working of global intellectual property rights protection in all its member countries. This opinion discusses protection of geographical indications in India. <br/> <br/>Page(s): 429-430 Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:58:59 GMT http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/12693 Title: European Intellectual Property Developments <br/> <br/>Authors: Cook, Trevor <br/> <br/>Abstract: As an European intellectual property lawyer, the author is often struck by the amount of comparative analysis in the area of intellectual property which adopts US intellectual property laws, rather than European ones, as their point of comparison. This seems strange when in many respects US intellectual property laws have their own unique features and when European such laws are often more closely aligned with the laws of most other countries in the world. This series of articles aims to expand knowledge of and to explain something of European intellectual property laws; how they got to their present state, what are current hot topics in them, where they are heading and why they matter. This first article will provide an overview of some of these issues and subsequent articles will focus on specific areas of intellectual property. <br/> <br/>Page(s): 426-428 Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:58:59 GMT http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/12692 Title: Abrogating Sovereign Immunity in Patent Infringement Cases in India: Retreating Without Disgrace <br/> <br/>Authors: Chakravarti, Devaditya; Thadani, Karmanye; Chablani, Varun; Nayak, Alok <br/> <br/>Abstract: A broad overview of the present patent regime internationally, reveals that States have an untrammelled, unbridled privilege to derogate from any burden as may arise on infringement of patents held by its citizens, in the name of ‘sovereign immunity’. This is in addition to a power conferred upon the State to acquire patents arbitrarily and the discretion to grant compulsory licenses to third parties. In the United States of America, this has aroused much debate ever since the judiciary maintained a stand in favour of the doctrine of sovereign immunity which has its roots in the British Common Law concept of ‘the king can do no wrong’; a principle that is regarded anachronistic by many.<br></br><br></br> Even in India, the Indian Patent Act, 1970 has provisions which immunize the State from liability in cases of patent infringement and provide for arbitrary acquisition of patents; for reasons that need not necessarily fall within the ambit of medical emergencies or only for life-saving medicines or technologies, as many would wrongly tend to believe, but for any use by the government. Under the Act, the government can infringe or acquire a patent directly and openly without any liability. In the light of this, can Article 300A of the Indian Constitution (the right to property), interpreted in the light of the doctrine of reasonableness, be used as a remedy by patentees in case of infringement by the State through a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution? After all, the jurisprudence of the liability of the State in India is indeed much more evolved and more oriented in favour of the rule of law than it is in the United States. This article examines and denounces the sheer incongruity between patent infringement liability for acts by a private individual and exemption for the same acts by the government and suggests some reforms in the present Indian patent law. <br/> <br/>Page(s): 418-425 Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:58:59 GMT http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/12691 Title: Best Mode Disclosure for Patent Applications: An International and Comparative Perspective <br/> <br/>Authors: Lu, Bingbin <br/> <br/>Abstract: The best mode disclosure requirement helps to ensure that the public receives a full and honest disclosure in return for the grant of patent. It has a profound theoretical basis and foundation. The best mode disclosure requirement is an optional obligation under the TRIPS Agreement in its Article 29. Among the most important developed countries that have implemented this disclosure requirement are the US and Japan; however, there are certain differences in their national laws and practices, especially with regard to the legal effect of this requirement. In the US, patent reform is tending towards removing the best mode disclosure from the list of reasons to invalidate a granted patent; although, the requirement will still apply to all patent applications during patent prosecutions. Developing countries are recommended to consider adopting the best mode disclosure requirement in their patent laws. It is proposed that patent applicants be required to disclose the best mode which shall be a substantive condition for patent grant; however, the failure to disclose the best mode may not constitute a reason to invalidate a granted patent. <br></br> The objective of this article is to study the best mode disclosure requirement from an international and comparative perspective, and suggest how developing countries should implement this disclosure requirement. The article also seeks to answer to two questions: whether a developing country should implement the best mode disclosure requirement, and if so, how to best implement it? <br/> <br/>Page(s): 409-417 Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:58:59 GMT