Total Pageviews

Friday, January 06, 2017

Delhi High Court Strikes Down Section 24(5) of the Plant Varieties Act as Unconstitutional

On December 2, 2016, the Delhi High Court struck down Section 24(5) of the Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (Act) as unconstitutional in Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. et al. v. Registrar of Plant Varieties. 
During the proceeding, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the government of India, argued that Section 24(5) was necessary for the public interest. Specifically, the Solicitor General argued that this section of the Act was based on Article 13 of the International Convention for the Protection of New Plant Varieties, 1991 (UPOV), which necessitated Article 24(5) because it obligated parties to take suitable steps to safeguard the rights of applicants during the period during which their application was under evaluation. 
The Court concluded stating:
“Given the importance of the Act, there is enormous danger in empowering authorities with unguided and uncanalized power through provisions that can implicate livelihoods and limit or impair food access to tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of farmers and users of plant varieties. The existence of a large section of farmers unschooled in the provisions of the Act and unaware of their rights renders unethical bioprospecting practices and spurious claims to development of new or other registrable varieties, entitled to registration, a real possibility. Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act as cast as present may undoubtedly be an adequate remedy to prevent abusive practices (assuming that what is abusive can be defined over a period of time); yet the danger of abuse of the provision itself and the attendant (likely) long term injury to innocent breeders, framers and those in the business of development of hybrids and plant varieties far outweighs its benefits, in view of the unguided nature of the power, which is destructive of the rule of law and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, is, therefore, declared void.”
Source: bricwallblog
Also read: spicyip

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Qualcomm fined $853 million in South Korea over FRAND

Last year China fined Qualcomm  $975 million and now is the turn of South Korea.  As per reports South Korea’s antitrust regulator slapped a record 1.03 trillion won ($853 million) fine on Qualcomm Inc. for violating antitrust laws. 

1. Qualcomm, a holder of standard-essential patents as well as a monopolistic service provider of modem chips from manufacturing to sales, has violated its agreement to license patents on fair reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, known as FRAND.

2.  Qualcomm should make standard-essential patents available for separate licensing rather than bundling them with chipset sales. 

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Australia may introduce Object clause in patent act.

Productivity Committee recommendation on Australian Intellectual Property has a revolutionary provision.
RECOMMENDATION 7.1 The Australian Government should incorporate an objects clause into the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The objects clause should describe the purpose of the legislation as enhancing the wellbeing of Australians by promoting technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology. In so doing, the patent system should balance over time the interests of producers, owners and users of technology.
Interesting from Indian perspective are convergence of thoughts on inventive step, data protection, abolition of Innovation Patent System (petty patents/ utility patents).

Download the recommendation.

Thursday, December 08, 2016

Construction of highways to nuclear plants on soft soil-Chinese invention

High Vacuum Densification Method (HVDM) is offered by Geoharbour group , China. Using this technology, the firm reclaimed land, constructed highways to nuclear power plants. Details :

In recent limited years, over 20 inventions have been proposed by the Company and approved by the state intellectual authority, including HVDM Soft Soil Treatment Method (ZL01127046.2), Surcharge Preloading Combining HVDM (ZL200410014257.9) and Composite Foundation Combining HVDM (ZL200510134966.5), etc. These inventions are options for site treatments of varied geological conditions and requirements. Advancements have been made with regards to concepts, calculations, construction specifications and field tests. Inventions have obtained PCT certificates and registered in over twenty countries.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Public Consultation on Draft National Policy on Software Products

Are u clear about difference between `Software Products' and `Software services'?
Check the draft policy on `Software Products' and send yr comments to Dr A. K. Garg, Director, MeitY ( / Dr Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Scientist-C, MeitY ( latest by December 10, 2016.