tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235739602026-03-24T18:48:02.734+05:30Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.comBlogger479125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-52155397686465228702013-03-22T21:56:00.000+05:302013-03-22T21:56:04.720+05:30

The confirmed speakers for Pharma IPR 2013 taking place from 10-12 April at Holiday Inn Mumbai International Airport, Mumbai, India are as follows: Jeffrey Alan Hovden, Partner, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi (USA) Sri K Sankaran, Partner, Winthrop & Weinstine (USA) Rowan Forster, Director, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs (South Africa) Mariko Mimura, Director, Head of Legal/IP Japan,

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-26649812596458493342013-01-18T00:06:00.001+05:302013-01-18T00:08:31.112+05:30

ManagingIP will hold its 2nd India IP and Innovation Forum 2013 in New Delhi on March 07, 2013 following the inaugural success in 2012. The conference is designed open and free for corporate patent/IP counsels though private practitioners need to pay registration fee. The conference agenda is as follows. The Indian Patent Act and Software patentability Implications of the Indian Patent

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-39394273342849001112013-01-17T23:21:00.000+05:302013-01-18T17:28:48.862+05:30

CPhI India will hold its 2nd Annual Pharma IPR India 2013 in Mumbai from April 10-12, 2013. The three-day conference will focus and discuss on patent regimes and market entry strategies of over 10 countries including Brazil, China, Europe, Korea, South Africa, Russia, South East Asia (Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand) and the US. Key aspects that are likely to be discussed in the conference

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-18991640456240440502012-11-30T02:00:00.000+05:302012-11-30T03:39:49.612+05:30

Continuing from the last post that discussed background of Tarceva patent and the single judge order rejecting Roche's application for interim injunction to restrain Cipla from manufacturing and selling generic product Erlocip, here we discuss appeal filed by Roche before the divisional bench at the Delhi High Court against the rejection order.  C. Appeal before the Divisional bench After

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-66862428784958995802012-11-17T17:18:00.000+05:302012-11-17T18:20:44.518+05:30

On September 07, 2012, the Delhi High Court in F. Hoffmann-La Roche et al v. Cipla Ltd. (No. 89/2008) ruled Indian Pat. No. 196774 jointly owned by OSI Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer for anticancer drug compound Erlotinib hydrochloride valid but not infringed by Cipla’s generic product Erlocip. In his painstakingly 275-page decision, the single judge, Justice Manmohan Singh opined that the

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-41675865177439026902011-12-10T02:13:00.004+05:302011-12-10T02:23:42.373+05:30

For some time now, we have been reporting on compulsory licensing case filed by Natco Pharma with respect to IN215758 for anti-cancer drug Nexavar marketed by Bayer. Natco mainly relied upon on the issues of (1) excessive pricing, (2) non-working of patent, (3) limited circulation of patented product, and (4) public requirements not reasonably satisfied. However, Natco provided no factual

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-57558958482305223912011-11-17T23:34:00.002+05:302011-11-18T00:15:51.728+05:30

Sometime back, we posted on compulsory license triggered by Natco Pharma with respect to IN215758 claiming anti-cancer drug Nexavar, generically sorafenib tosylate marketed by Bayer. The Application for compulsory license (FORM 17) was filed on July 28, 2011 along with the details of documentary evidence as mandated under S. 84 (3) of the Act. Natco argument for issuance of compulsory license

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-22372202812841369162011-11-08T02:22:00.004+05:302011-11-08T15:26:49.493+05:30

Round Three: Appointment of IPAB Technical Member After losing its first two rounds before the Madras Patent Office and the Madras High Court, Novartis third round came against appointment of technical member of newly-constituted IPAB. In April 2007, soon after the Central Government appointed former Controller General of Patents S. Chandrasekhar as a technical member on the Appellate Board,

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-91183544491082693452011-11-04T13:52:00.008+05:302011-11-05T11:43:08.400+05:30

Round Two: Madras High Court Continuing from our earlier post where we discussed rejection of beta-crystalline imatinib mesylate application by the Madras Patent Office under S. 3 (d), we will now focus on round two where Novartis approached the Madras High Court challenging constitutional validity of S. 3 (d). Before we discuss the judgment, a quick reading of S. 3 (d) – “mere discovery

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-8961722844369191862011-10-03T14:04:00.006+05:302011-10-03T18:45:40.528+05:30

The high-profile Glivec patent dispute in which Novartis challenged the Madras (Chennai) Patent Office decision of rejecting its patent application for beta-crystalline version of imatinib mesylate under vaguely interpreted S. 3 (d) is now been heard in the Supreme Court of India. The dispute has been in print media more for the wrong reasons and widely reported as controversial because of NGOs

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-72365717229060327512011-10-01T14:26:00.003+05:302011-10-01T14:28:00.828+05:30

Section 6 Inter partes review Amends 35 USC § 311 to replace inter partes re-examination with “inter partes review” allowing third party to challenge validity or scope of an issued patent only on a ground that is permissible under 35 USC § 102 and 103. The review must be filed within nine months after grant or reissuance of patent or after the grant of termination of post-grant review. Prior

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-38808461046352478182011-09-30T21:56:00.006+05:302011-11-18T00:20:29.848+05:30

On September 16, 2011, the US President Barack Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act – enacting it into law that is widely perceived as a reform to foster innovation and stimulate US economic growth by streamlining, harmonizing the US patent process. The new law will speed up the patent process that will help applicants and entrepreneurs bringing their inventions to market sooner,

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-65332839233106524452011-08-11T12:23:00.004+05:302011-11-18T00:22:36.160+05:30

In what can be described as a major concern for the global pharma companies, Hyderabad-based Natco Pharma has triggered statutory compulsory licensing provision under S. 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 to manufacture and sell a generic version of Bayer’s patented anti-cancer drug Nexavar, generically sorafenib tosylate. This development came after Bayer refused Natco’s plea to grant voluntary

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-8493495321247457592011-01-21T10:00:00.002+05:302011-11-18T00:28:58.899+05:30

Economic Times lately reported that a group of patent lawyers under the aegis of a newly formed public interest group, Promoting Public Interest Lawyering (P-PIL) have filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the Intellectual Property Appellate Broad (IPAB) saying the members are incompetent to hear IP cases. The patent lawyers have requested the Madras High Court to prevent IPAB from

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-8916110775999785852011-01-19T12:52:00.003+05:302011-09-23T16:33:17.674+05:30

The Delhi Patent Office lately refused the Application Number 4015/DELNP/2006 filed by Warner Lambert claiming topical formulation of Pfizer’s potential potassium channel opener UK-157147 for the treatment of alopecia, which got discontinued in phase II trials. The Application got refused on the grounds of lack of inventive step and not patentable under S.3 (d) and (e). During the prosecution,

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-17752730497177285862011-01-17T13:15:00.001+05:302011-09-23T16:33:58.403+05:30

The Delhi Patent Office lately refused the Application Number 924/DELNP/2006 filed by Boehringer Ingelheim claiming polymorphic form II of anticoagulant drug dabigatran etexilate mesylate, marketed under the brand name Pradaxa. The Application was refused on the grounds of lack of inventive step and not patentable under S.3 (d). During the prosecution, Boehringer tried to substantiate

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-45995436770343485492011-01-10T23:56:00.001+05:302011-09-23T16:34:43.079+05:30

The Indian Patent Office lately revoked the Patent Number IN212199 issued to Novartis claiming single-pill combination of aliskiren and valsartan marketed as Valturna. The patent was revoked after Novartis failed to overcome the post-grant opposition filed by Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The decision is yet another case where combination claim was found lacking inventive step on the ground of ‘

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-42896654876507942512011-01-09T03:55:00.001+05:302011-09-23T16:38:26.251+05:30

The Delhi Patent Office lately refused the Application Number 1770/DELNP/2006 filed by Theravnce, Inc. claiming hydrochloride salt of antibacterial drug Telavancin. The Application was refused on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step and not patentable under S.3 (d). Complete review of the order can be read here.

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-12495967403780388792011-01-09T03:48:00.001+05:302011-09-23T16:38:40.671+05:30

The Chennai Patent Office lately refused the Application No. IN/PCT/2002/410/CHE filed by Bayer Schering Pharma, AG claiming contraceptive formulation of drospirenone and ethinylestradiol (EE) marketed as Yasmin and Yaz/Yasminelle in Europe and the US. The Application was refused after Bayer failed to overcome the pre-grant oppositions filed against the Application by generic manufacturers Cipla

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-7067889280106376362010-08-30T18:49:00.002+05:302011-09-23T16:36:05.477+05:30

Continued from our last post where we briefly discussed about the rejection of pre-grant opposition filed by Cipla for the Application Number 3003/CHENP/2004 for anti-cancer drug Nilotinib which later matured into issued Patent Number 237430. The opposition proceedings was fought on the grounds of lack of (1) inventiveness u/s 25(1)(e) and (2) enablement u/s 25(1)(g). Interestingly during

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-65865215682154113842010-08-21T17:39:00.003+05:302011-09-23T16:37:33.528+05:30

Patent Circle earlier posted the issuance of Indian Patent Number 237430 to Novartis against the Application Number 3003/CHENP/2004 for anticancer drug Nilotinib, globally marketed as Tasigna. Like Imatinib and Erlotinib, Nilotinib too belongs to the class of tyrosin kinase inhibitors which is extensively discussed on our blog (read here, here and here). Notably, the Application for Nilotinib

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-19380993708768071512010-08-20T02:03:00.002+05:302011-09-23T16:41:34.160+05:30

In another post-grant opposition decided earlier this month, the Mumbai Patent Office revoked Indian Patent Number 202297 issued to Richter Gedon protecting emergency contraceptive pill containing 1.5mg Levonorgestrel, the active ingredient of Cipla’s money spinner i-pill (recently sold to Piramal Healthcare) and Mankind’s Unwanted 72. The ‘297 patent was issued against the Indian Patent

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-82082483095241099772010-08-20T00:42:00.002+05:302011-09-23T16:41:46.876+05:30

Earlier this month, the Swiss Multinational Novartis lost DULERA post-grant opposition to Mumbai-based Cipla as the Chennai Patent Office revoked Indian Patent Number 202350 on the ground of obviousness/lack of inventive step. The ‘350 patent protecting FORMOTEROL FUMARATE and MOMETASONE FUROATE inhalation aerosol combination, the active ingredients of lately approved fixed-dose combination

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-44922519352025789302010-06-02T18:24:00.003+05:302011-09-23T16:42:01.418+05:30

One of the finest scientists India ever produced – APJ Abdul Kalam urges Indian scientists to become pioneers in innovation and technology in his recent speech at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. He categorically stressed that India’s present growth has been achieved based on patents generated elsewhere sometime ago as well as innovations and technology developed elsewhere. He also

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23573960.post-27935904346789834252010-04-20T18:32:00.003+05:302011-09-23T16:42:23.182+05:30

Novartis has lately filed a civil lawsuit against the Mumbai-based generic manufacturer Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited for infringement of US Patent No. 5,866,581 listed with the Orange Book for Famvir tablets, generically Famciclovir. The lawsuit is filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia in response of Macleods submission to the FDA an abbreviated new drug application (

Varun Chhonkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14832100552935109903noreply@blogger.com0