Category Archives: India

Fighting with Counterfeit Menace: Montblanc Simplo GmbH vs. Gaurav Bhatia & ors. CS(OS) 2563/2013: Granting Injunctive Relief

Introduction:

It always has been a well known fact that the markets in India are targeted by large number of counterfeit products/goods. Popular brands like LV, GUCCI, Burberry, Armani, Hermes inter alia; are frequently pirated in local commercial markets. Among others, the most popular counterfeit products in market include hardware, software, clothing, watches, writing instruments.

At that backdrop, Indian system is striving hard to deal with the menace caused by the counterfeit products in the market which not only endangers country’s reputation and goodwill but also affect country’s financial market. Indian judiciary has timely made its presence felt by passing landmark judgments with various issues Indian market is facing. Recently, Hon’ble Delhi Court passed orders in one such case which dealt with counterfeit issue.

Facts of the case:

Delhi High Court in its recent judgment dated January 04, 2017 in the matter of Montblanc Simplo GmbH vs.  Gaurav Bhatia & ors. CS (OS) 2563/2013, The Court has restrained an electronic commerce web portal functioning under the Trade name “www.DIGAA.com”. The Defendant’s impugned website was alleged dealing with the manufacturing, selling and advertising of counterfeit Montblanc products which are registered under the Trademark of the Plaitiffs.

Background of the case:

Plaintiff:

A German company incorporated under the laws of the country having its registered office at Hamburg. The registered company named “Montblanc Simplo GmbH” has its work engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sales of pens & other writing instruments under the registered Trade name MONTBLANC MEISTERSTUCK,. The plaintiff’s company Trademark also include “The Star Device” which is a white stylized six pointed star with circular edges and the “The three ring Device” comprised of three metallic bands located close to the middle of body of pen cap. The plaintiff’s company claims its product registered under proprietors name within India as well as other countries across the world.

In July 2013, the plaintiff through its office in India came to know that the said defendant was selling counterfeit products on a lesser rate from original product of plaintiff. The defendant represented his product as original product of Plaintiff Company. Hence, the present suit was filed.

Submission by the parties:

Plaintiff’s Submission:

  • Plaintiff claimed that his company is losing reputation and trust of his clients because of defendant’s counterfeited products. Plaintiff claimed to be suffering loss and demanded damage worth INR 2,005,000.
  • Plaintiff stated the price of original MEISTERSTUCK CLASSIQUE is INR 30,000 whereas the defendants were selling similar counterfeit product for INR 6,860.
  • Plaintiff in his submission stated that they purchased writing instrument, namely, the MEISTERSTUCK CLASSIQUE from the website defendant was using to sell the products, which were being sold at a discounted price and falsely represented as a product of the plaintiff upon examination that the product was a counterfeit.
  • It was submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant’s product is of inferior quality; also the refill used in Defendants instrument was different than that of original product. Defendant’s instrument has a different color combination than that of plaintiff. Also, the tip of the refill of defendant’s writing instrument has a plastic ball which is different than that of plaintiff’s original product. The serial numbers on the product were also fabricated by the defendant.

The defendants after filing their Written Statement stopped appearing in court and the suit was preceded Ex-parte.

Observation by the Hon’ble court:

  • Court observed some of the consumers complaints filed against the defendant including one customer who purchased counterfeited product from defendant and suffered subsequently lodged a complaint before the cyber cell of Chandigarh Police under section 420 & 406 of Indian Penal Code and section 66A of Information Technology Act.
  • Plaintiff’s brand name MONTBLANC is a well-known mark having goodwill and reputation in its market. It is also proved that public identified plaintiff’s product from its trade dress which includes “The Star Device” and “The Three Ring Device”.
  • Plaintiff also proved on record its notice published in India, and related information from the defendant’s web portal displaying counterfeit products of the plaintiff’s Trademark, They also attached the invoice alongside of the purchased products and photographs of counterfeit products and their warranty card.
  • The court observed that the plaintiff had proved that the defendant was counterfeiting its goods and thereby, infringing its Trademark.

Held:

The Hon’ble Court, in view of the above case granted relief of permanent injunction against the Defendants as sought by the plaintiff  and also passed a restraining order against them to restrain them from Passing-off their counterfeit products as that of plaintiff’s. However, the claim for damages was rejected by the court on the ground that Plaintiffs have not produced sufficient evidence to show the extent of actual damage suffered by the company. Hence, the judgment was in the favor of the plaintiff. Pertinently, it is important to note that in order to claim damages proper and sufficient evidence must accompany to get monetary relief against damages suffered.

About the author: Mayank Srivastav, an intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys

Export under section 107A of Indian Patent Act, 1970

In the case of Bayer Corporation versus Union of India & ors (W.P.(C) 1971/2014) and Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr versus Alembic Pharmaceuticals ltd (CS(COMM) No.1592/2016), High Court of Delhi in the consolidated decision dated March 08, 2017, adjudicated on the issue whether Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 permits export from India of a patented invention, even if solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in India, or in a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product.

Though it’s been almost five years after first compulsory license (in India) was granted to Natco in 2012 against Bayer’s Patent IN215758 covering Nexavar (Sorafenib ), Bayer and Natco are fighting it hard in 2017 as well. One of the terms of Compuslory License was “solely for the purposes of making, using, offering to sell and selling the drug covered by the patent for the purpose of treating HCC and RCC in humans within the territory of India”.

Subsequently, Natco was permitted to export the drug SORAFENIB TOSYLATE not exceeding 15 gm for development / clinical studies and trials. Natco again applied for permission to export 1 Kg. of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) SORAFENIB to China for the purposes of conducting development / clinical studies and trials, to which Bayer objected.

To better understand the issue at the heart of this decision, it’s important to understand section 48 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 which gives rights of Patentee and section 107A of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 which lists out activities which shall not be considered to be infringement of Patent.
Both the sections have been reproduced below for convenience.

Section 48:

Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and the conditions specified in section 47, a patent granted under this Act shall confer upon the patentee—

(a) where the subject matter of the patent is a product, the exclusive right to prevent third parties, who do not have his consent, from the act of making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes that product in India;

(b) where the subject matter of the patent is a process, the exclusive right to prevent third parties, who do not have his consent, from the act of using that process, and from the act of using, offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes the product obtained directly by that process in India.

Section 107A:

For the purposes of this Act,— any act of making, constructing, using, selling or importing a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in India, or in a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product; (b) importation of patented products by any person from a person who is duly authorised under the law to produce and sell or distribute the product, shall not be considered as a infringement of patent rights.

Natco pleaded that export of the Patented invention for the use reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in India, or in a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product is squarely covered under section 107A. It also submitted that its intentions were not for commercial purpose. Natco also submitted that grant of Compulsory License does not take away the rights to export the Patented invention for the purposes of section 107A.

Bayer alleged that 107A of Indian Patent Act does not allow exporting of drug even for the purposes of reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in India, or in a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product. Bayer tried to draw attention to the fact that language of section 107A does not use the word ‘export’ but uses the word ‘import’. Bayer alleged that absence of the word ‘export’ clearly indicates the purpose of the law was not to allow the export of the patented invention and the words ‘in a country other than India’ should be interpreted only to allow export of the information generated by experiments in India. Patented invention as such cannot be exported from India to generate information to be submitted in other countries. The word selling should be interpreted to mean selling in India and not outside. Bayer alleged that if law intended to allow export, language would have expressly included that as it has included import. In summary, Bayer requested the court to interpret the word sell to mean selling without exporting, i.e. selling in India. Bayer importantly also alleged that exporting under 107A of Patented invention for which compulsory license was granted would result in the abuse of law.

On 5th November, 2014, Natco was permitted export of SORAFENIB for carrying on activities for obtaining regulatory approvals within the meaning of Section 107A of the Act. Bayer preferred appeal against the said order and which was disposed of by expediting the hearing of the writ petition and by prohibiting export till the decision of the writ petition. The hearing of the writ petition commenced on 7th September, 2015 and concluded on 8th July, 2016, when orders were reserved.

Natco had also brought attention to the fact that China requires clinical trials to be conducted in China and do not recognize clinical trials conducted in India. This makes it mandatory for Natco to seek export under section 107A so that it can launch the product in China immediately after term of patent is over.

CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 was filed by Bayer to injunct Alembic from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale and in any manner directly or indirectly dealing in Rivaroxaban‘ and any product that infringes Bayer‘s patent IN 211300. Alembic was manufacturing and exporting RIVAROXABAN to the European Union and had made multiple Drug Master File submissions to the United States Food and Drug Administration in the United States of America for the drug RIVAROXABAN. Alembic alleged that exports being effected by Alembic were within the meaning of Section 107A only.

For both cases, court held after referring different dictionaries that selling cannot be interpreted to mean to exclude exporting. Also court found that Patent Act does not require court to do so. Court also brought attention to the fact that even absence of the word ‘export’ in section 48 does not prevent Patentee from restricting third parties from exporting patented invention. Court explained that it’s not the exporting of information is allowed but it’s the Patented invention. The words ‘in a country other than India’ are for the law in force (of country where information is required).
Court also went on to hold that even when compulsory license is granted, Natco as a non-patentee cannot be deprived of making, constructing and selling by way of export a patented invention for purposes specified in Section 107A.

Court gave the liberty Bayer to, if makes out a case of the exports effected or to be effected being for purposes other than specified in Section 107A, take appropriate proceedings therefor.

About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com.

India’s time to delve into IP laws

Shireen Shukla, legal intern at Kkurana & Khurana, probes the recent International IP Index report, released by U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where India stood at 43rd position, out of 45 countries.

On 8th February, 2017 U.S. Chamber of Commerce released its 5th annual International IP Index, “The Roots of Innovation,” rating 45 world economies on patents, trademarks, copyright, trade secrets, enforcement, and international treaties with the aim to provide both, an IP report card for the world and a guidebook for policymakers seeking to bolster economic growth and innovation.

It is an undeniable fact that protection of intellectual property serves dual role in the economic growth of a country. Where on one hand it promotes innovation by providing legal protection of inventions, on the other it may retard catch-up and learning by restricting the diffusion of innovations. Therefore a sounder IPR protection in a country encourages technology development and technology transfer from developed to least developed countries. Countries that would demonstrate a commitment to IP laws will only reap rewards.

Often we have seen that major companies and brands invest their money or open their outlets in another country only after seeing the soundness of their IP laws. This proves the role of IP laws and enforceability on the GDP of a country.

GIPC is leading a worldwide effort to champion intellectual property rights as vital to creating jobs, saving lives, advancing global economic growth, and generating breakthrough solutions to global challenges  (Reddy, 2017). The Index ranked the IP systems of 45 countries. Where on one hand United States was ranked number 1, India and Pakistan were ranked 43 and 44 respectively.

Image Source: U.S. Chamber International IP Index: http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/ipindex2017-chart/#

 

Some major facts from the IP Index:

  • A pack of global IP leaders emerged among the 2017 Index rankings, with the U.S., UK, Japan, and EU economies, ranked more closely together than ever.
  • Canada signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which raised the bar for life sciences IP protection.
  • Russia introduced new forced localization measures.
  • Japan’s score increased by 10% due to ratification of TPP and accession to the Index treaties.
  • South Korea passed amendments to the Patent Law.
  • Uncertainty around software patentability, Section 3(d) of the Patent Law, and High Court copyright decisions in India continue to present challenges.
  • Indonesia’s Patent Law included a heightened efficacy requirement and outlawed second use claims.
  • South Africa introduced new local procurement policies.
  • UAE created a specialized IPR Court.
  • Indian government issued the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy in 2016.

India announced the much-awaited National IPR Policy in May 2016. This act proved to be a positive attitude to foster the IP laws in India. The Policy is a boon for the IP industry as it provides constructive ways and methods to improve IP administration. The policy has enumerated the importance to educate Indian businesses about IP rights.

The Policy makers realizing the real issue in hand, addressed a number of important gaps in India’s national IP environment, which included the need for stronger enforcement of existing IP rights through the building of new state-level IP cells and investing more resources in existing enforcement agencies; reducing processing times for patent and trademark applications; as well as the need for introducing a legislative framework for the protection of trade secrets

Major developments and landmark judgments in Intellectual property laws since 2015:

  • The Delhi high court on 7 October 2015, barred Mumbai-based Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd from selling, distributing, marketing or exporting its anti-diabetes drugs Zita and Zita-Met,as they tentatively infringed the patent of US-based pharmaceuticals company Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
  • In March, 2016, the Delhi High court in the case of Ericcson v. CCI for the first time ever, considered at how IP law interfaced with competition law. It allowed Competition Commission of India (CCI) to continue its investigation into anti-competitive practices by Ericsson regarding use of its SEP’s by other companies such as Micromax and Intex.
  • National IPR Policy in 2016, released last year is entirely compliant with the WTO’s agreement on TRIPS.
  • Examination time for trademarks has been reduced from 13 months to 8 months in the 2016 policy.
  • Bombay HC passed a series of judgments cases (Phantm Films pvt, Ltd. v. CBFC & Anr; Eros International Media Ltd. & Another v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) laid down a strict agenda for the grant of John Doe orders leading to path breaking shift in the John Doe jurisprudence in India. The above-mentioned judgments are focused on balancing the interests of not just copyright holders but also the Internet users and innocent third party providers.
  • The judgment by Bombay HC in Eros v. Telemax, is a pioneer that unwrapped the scope of arbitration of IP disputes arising out of licensing and other commercial transactions.
  • In December 2016, the Delhi High Court in the case of Agri Biotech v. Registrar of Plant Varieties declared section 24(5) of the Plant Varieties Act unconstitutional. The court giving a momentous judgment stated that the section violates Article 14 as it gives unchecked powers to the Registrar. The registrar is not required to be from a legal background in order to grant interim relief to a breeder against any abusive third party act during the period its registration application is pending.This lead to arbitrary use of powers by the registrar.

Beside the above-mentioned developments and progressions, PM Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” initiative also aims to promoting foreign direct investment and implementing intellectual property rights. In these initiatives, the government has decided to improve the intellectual property rights for the benefit of innovators and creators by modernizing infrastructure, and using state of the art technology.

One of the most recent and effective change brought in the trademark rules was on 6th march 2017, where the number of trademark forms have been reduced from 74 to 8 with an aim of simplifying the process of trade mark applications. The new rules promote e-filling of the trademark applications. The fee for online filing of the application is 10 per cent lower than that of the physical filing.

Steps India can take to strengthen its IPR laws:

  • India should implement speedy examination and registration procedures.
  • It should take effective steps to achieve the target of one month (as stated in IPR policy 2016).
  • The number of patent examiners and trademark offices should be increased to improve efficiency and disposal speed.
  • Section 3(d) of India’s Patent Act 1970, relating to restrictions on patenting incremental changes should be amended. Norms relating ever greening should also be revised.
  • A new and revised IPR laws and policies should be implemented so as to make it compatible with IPR laws of WIPO, TRIPS and other major dominant countries like US & UK

Every fiscal year, enormous time and money is being invested on R&D to improve the existing status of the Intellectual property laws in India, to bring it at par with the IP laws of US. We hope by following the above guidelines and following the National IPR Policy, India’s position improves in the next International IP Index 2017.

References :

  1. Prashant Reddy, The Press Release Journalism Around the GIPC IP Index, February 13, 2017, < https://spicyip.com/2017/02/the-press-release-journalism-around-the-gipc-ip-index.html&gt; Last accessed: 28th February 2017
  2. Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation. v. Glenmark Pharmaceutical, FAO (OS) 190/2013, C.M. APPL. 5755/2013, 466/2014 & 467/2014, (Delhi High Court) (20.03.2015)
  3. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Competition Commission of India, W.P.(C) 464/2014 & CM Nos.911/2014 & 915/2014, (Delhi High Court) (30.03.2016)
  4. Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. v. The Central Board of Film Certification, W.P.(L) 1529 /2016, (Bombay High Court) (13.06.2016)
  5. Eros International Media Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, C.S. No.620 /2016 & O.A.Nos.763 to 765/2016 (Madras High Court) (25.10.2016)
  6. Eros International Media Limited v. Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd., Suit no. 331 /2013, (Bombay High Court) ((12.04.2016)
  7. Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. v. Registrar of Plant Varities, W.P.(C) 250/2009, (Delhi High Court) (02.12.2016)

 

BLACKBERRY SUES NOKIA FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW

The once powerful mobile phone companies BlackBerry and Nokia are in the headlines again, not for their new technological developments but because of their legal battle.

The Valentine’s Day card for Nokia was in the form of complaint entailing 11 items that Blackberry did not like about it. The complaint listed out the 11 patents of Blackberry infringed by Nokia. The company has not commanded an injunctive relief, i.e. asking Nokia to stop using the patents; instead it has asked for compensation for the unauthorized usage of the said patents. Let’s have a brief overview of the case.

Blackberry:

Headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Blackberry Limited, formerly known as Research In Motion (RIM), was founded by two engineering students, Mike Lazaridis and Douglas Fregin in 1984. It is a multi-national wireless telecommunications software and mobile hardware company, currently chaired by John S. Chen. It had taken over the smart phone market with its flagship QWERTY keypad range of mobile phones. Blackberry uses its own operating system, and had recently entered the Android arena of smart phones. It had ruled the gadget market with its classy, easy and appealing technology and applications for over two decades until its plunge with the launch of Apple iPhone and other Android phones. It had also developed key innovations that underlie 3G and 4G mobile communication technologies, such as Long-Term Evolution (LTE), including LTE Advanced and Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN) technologies, and Universal Mobile Telecommunication Systems (UMTS). Blackberry’s contribution to innovation, including investment in research and development has exceeded a total of $ 5.5 billion, and has protected the technical innovations by seeking patents from the US office.

Nokia:

In a paper mill in 1865, Nokia was created by Fredrik Idestam and Leo Mechelin in South-west Finland. It is a multinational communications and information technology company, considered to be one of the most important Fortune 500 organizations. Nokia launched Mobira Cityman in 1987, the world’s first handheld phone. The most famous Nokia’s first GSM handset, Nokia 1101, was a swift hit in the market when it was launched in 1992. The partnership of Nokia with Microsoft It is presently chaired by Rajeev Suri. With the ingression of new companies, Nokia has tumbled down.

Connecting the dots:

Rockstar Consortium Inc. (also Rockstar Bidco) was formed in 2012 to settle and negotiate patent licensing acquired from the bankrupt multinational telecommunications and data networking equipment manufacturer Nortel. It comprises of five members: Apple Inc. Blackberry, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony.

Rockstar Consortium bought Nortel’s IP in 2011 for $ 4.5 Billion, and created a special-purpose-patent-assertion company to use them. The IP consisted of over 6000 patents covering 4G wireless innovations and a range of technologies. Nokia had also made an attempt to buy Nortel’s IP in 2009, but was unable to obtain them due to the latter’s bankruptcy proceedings. In 2012, Rockstar Consortium was also listed, by the Business Insider, as the 3rd most fearsome (out of 8) “patent trolls” in the industry.

Rockstar initiated a lawsuit against 8 companies in 2013, including Google, Smasung, and other Android phone makers. When the IP was purchased by it, Google anticipated this scenario. The complaint encompassed 6 patents, all from the same patent family. The case was settled on confidential terms.

untitled

Blackberry sues Nokia: Case name:

Blackberry Limited   [Plaintiff]

Vs.

Nokia Corporation, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Nokia Solutions and Network Holdings USA Inc., and Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC                 [Defendants]

Case number and Court:

17- 155, United States District Court for the District of Delware (Wilmington). This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the defendants under the Delware Long-Arm Statue, 10 Del. Code § 3014, and the U.S. Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction over this controversy under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The action for patent infringement has arisen under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

Allegations:

Blackberry has filed this complaint against Nokia due to the latter’s unauthorized usage of the former’s contributions to innovation technologies. Blackberry holds the following 11 patents, known as “Asserted Patents” (enforcement of patent by the owner who believes that his patent has been infringed) which are the subject matter of the case:

  1. ‘418 Patent: United States Patent No. 6,996,418 is entitled “Apparatus and Method for PFDM Data Communications” and was issued on February 6, 2006.
  2. ‘246 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,254,246 is entitled “Scattered Pilot Pattern and Channel Estimation Method for MIMO-OFDM Systems and was issued on August 28, 2012.
  3. ‘090 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,494,090 is entitled “Detecting the Number of Transmit Antennas in a Base Station” and was issued on July 23, 2013.
  4. ‘305 Patent: United States Patent No. 7,529,305 is entitled “Combination of Space-Time Coding and Spatial Multiplexing, and the Use of Orthogonal Transformation in Space-Time Coding” and was issued on May 5, 2009.
  5. ‘433 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,861,433 is entitled “Method for Accessing a Service Unavailable through and Network Cell” and was issued on October 14, 2014.
  6. ‘697 Patent: United States Patent No. 9,426,697 is entitled “Method for Accessing a Service Unavailable through and Network Cell” and was issued on August 23, 2016.
  7. ‘772 Patent: United States Patent No. 9,253,772 is entitled “System and Method for Multi-Carrier Network Operation” and was issued on February 2, 2016.
  8. ‘192 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,897,192 is entitled “System and Method for Discontinuous Reception Control Start Time” and was issued on November 25, 2014.
  9. ‘202 Patent: United States Patent No. 9,125,202 is entitled “Multi-Beam Cellular Communication System” and was issued on September 1, 2015.
  10. ‘683 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,243,683 is entitled “Method and Apparatus for State/Mode Transitioning” and was issued on August 14, 2012.
  11. ‘829 Patent: United States Patent No. 8, 644,829 is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Signaling Release Cause Indication in a UMTS Network” and was issued on February 4, 2014.

Blackberry is the owner of all rights, title and interest in the aforementioned patents, with the full and exclusive right to bring suit to enforce them, including the right to recover for past infringement. Blackberry and RIM have publicly declared to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), an industry organization that promulgates wireless telecommunication standards specified by 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project), that the Asserted Patents may be or may become essential to LTE Standards and/or UMTS/UTRAN Standards [practising wireless telecommunication standards], and the declaration is in public domain, accessible on a search engine provided and maintained by ETSI (https://ipr.etsi.org/).

Nokia has taken action intending to cause others to directly infringe the patents, including by selling or offering for sale the Infringing Products to third parties in the United States while expressly promoting these products’ capability to practice the LTE Standards, knowing that using these products to practice the LTE Standards would constitute direct infringement of the ’418 patent.

Infringing Products:

The 3GPP specifications that enumerate LTE and UMTS/UTRAN Standards are and have been implemented in Nokia’s products like Nokia’s Flexi line of products, alone or in combination with Nokia software such as the Nokia Liquid Radio Software Suite (collectively, the “Infringing Products”).  The Infringing Products include, without limitation, the following products, alone or in combination:  Nokia’s Flexi Multiradio and Multiradio 10 base stations, the Flexi Zone (small cell) Micro and Pico base stations, Femtocell base stations, Flexi Network Server, the Flexi Radio Antenna System, Nokia radio network controllers, and Nokia Liquid Radio Software Suite.

Knowledge:

Blackberry alleges that Nokia had knowledge of the existence of the applications for or the family members of the Asserted Patents as it had used the same in various patent prosecutions of its own.

  • The family members of the ‘246 patent were cited in an international search report and were also cited by Nokia and by an examiner during prosecution of a number of patent applications assigned to Nokia. Hence, it had notice of this patent before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of parent application of the ‘090 patent was cited in an international search report, and was also cited by Nokia during prosecution of a number of patent applications assigned to it. Hence, it had notice of this patent before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of parent application of the ‘772 patent was cited by examiners during prosecution of a number of patent applications assigned to it. Hence, it had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of parent application of the ‘192 patent was cited by the examiner during prosecution of at least one patent application that was assigned to Alcatel-Lucent, which was acquired by Nokia. Hence, Nokia had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of the priority application of the ‘202 patent was cited by examiners during prosecution of a number of applications that were assigned to Alcatel entities, which were acquired by Nokia. Hence, it had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • Long before the filing of this action, Nokia knew or should have known from the prosecution of its own patent applications and those of Alcatel-Lucent that the asserted ’246, ’090, ’772, ’192, and ’202 patents covered LTE features used by their Infringing Products.
  • The publication of the application that resulted in the issuance of the ‘683 patent was cited by the examiner during prosecution of a Nokia patent application. Hence, Nokia had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of the application that resulted in the issuance of the ‘829 patent was cited by Nokia during prosecution of a Nokia patent application. Hence, Nokia had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • Long before the filing of this action, Nokia knew or should have known from the prosecution of its own patent applications that the asserted ‘683 and ‘829 patents covered UMTS/UTRAN features used by their Infringing Products.
  • By April 10, 2012, RIM had acquired the ’418, ’246, and ’305 patents and had caused to be recorded at the USPTO the assignments of ownership of these patents to RIM. Currently, the assignment of these patents to Blackberry has been recorded in the USPTO. Nokia has knowledge of the same through its due diligence of Nortel U.S. patents.

Infringement Claims:

Nokia knowingly and intentionally encourages and aids at least its end-users to directly infringe the asserted patents. Nokia has been, and currently is, an active inducer of infringement of these patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and a contributory infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). It has been willfully blind to the existence of the patents. Nokia’s infringement has been, and continues to be, willful and deliberate, and has caused substantial damage to BlackBerry. Nokia developed, commercialized, demonstrated, and/or tested the Infringing Products despite its evaluation and knowledge of the Nortel patent portfolio, including the application that led to the issuance of some patents, and its knowledge of family members of a few of the 11 patents from prosecution of its own patent applications. In spite of Nokia’s knowledge of the patents, Nokia has continued making, using, offering for sale/lease, and/or selling or leasing in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, the Infringing Products that are compliant with the LTE Standards, without a license from BlackBerry.  Nokia’s egregious infringement behavior warrants an award of enhanced damages.

Prayer for relief:

Blackberry prays that the Court:

  • Render judgment declaring that Nokia directly infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributed to the infringement of the asserted patents.
  • Award BlackBerry damages adequate to compensate it for Nokia’s infringement of the asserted patents.
  • Award an ongoing royalty for Nokia’s ongoing infringement of the asserted patents.
  • Render judgment declaring Nokia’s infringement of the asserted patents willful and deliberate, and award BlackBerry enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
  • Award BlackBerry pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the full extent allowed under the law, as well as BlackBerry’s costs and disbursements.
  • Enter an order finding that this is an exceptional case and awarding Blackberry its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
  • Award any other relief as the Court deems fit.

Conclusion:

Both the companies are having a downfall in their sales. Blackberry has stopped making smart phones, and Nokia has had a huge decrease in sales of its one-of-a-kind Lumia phones, manufactured in collaboration with Microsoft. Blackberry has started licensing its software and brand assets to others so that its name in the market continues. Also, it pledged to license these patents as they form essential elements for mobile telecommunication standard.  As is evident from the prayer of the complaint, no injunction has been claimed for. Instead, Blackberry has claimed damages and royalty for the unauthorized use of its patents. This is a smart move by the smart phone maker to commercialize on its leftover assets. Nokia has not responded to this complaint as of now, and is looking into the matter, as per a news article. Nokia’s counter is acutely awaited.

About the Author :

Ms. Aditi Tiwari, intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. Views expressed in this article are solely of the intern and do not reflect the views of either of any of the employees or employers.Queries regarding this may be directed to swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com

 

FRAND-ING PATENT LICENSES AND ITS IMPLICATION IN LANDMARK CASES IN INDIA

Everyday, a number of products are being invented all over the world, some cascading over the improvement of existing inventions, and the others, portraying a unique set of methods and products unknown to man at large. Simultaneously, there is an eruption of infringements that remain unnoticed or noticed following an incredulous load of proceedings and exorbitant costs. It is essential to protect the rightful rights of these owners against such infringements and unlawful interference to avoid any possible losses or damages in their peaceful functioning of their entities. In the field of protection of inventions, the adoption of Agreement of Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Patent Act, 1970 and related amendments aim to let these owners benefit from their inventions without any unnecessary disturbance.

1. DEFINING STANDARDS

In our day-to-day activities, we try to sculpt our needs as per certain benchmarks to achieve our desired results. Similarly in the field of patents, every invention requires certain targets to abide by in order to facilitate an irreplaceable position in the market. To put it technically, standards are technical specifications that seek to provide a common design for a product or process[1]. Ensuring that the products conform to standards facilities almost definite reliability, quality, stability when purchasing the products and subsequently, an increase in their demand. To lay it down simply, a standard is a document that exhibits certain requisites for a particular product, element, system or service or elaborately describes a specific method. Formal standards are declared by Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) and include establishments such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and various other ad hoc informal organizations[2].   Standards can also be of two different kinds- those with are mandatory or those that are up to one’s discretion[3].

2. STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS

The concept of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) cropped up when controversies between smartphone giants came about. Standard Essential Patents are basically, patents that inform the users or anyone else that the particular invention conforms to a particular standard denoted by that patent. SEP was also defined by the Washington District Court in Microsoft Corp. v Motorola Mobility, Inc.[4], as “A given patent is essential to a standard if use of the standard required infringement of the patent, even if acceptable alternatives of that patent could have been written into the standard”. It is a universal truth that consumers prefer standard compliant products as they deliver an incorrigible quality. Thus, in order to save a spot in the demand market, the inventors are forced to adopt technologies conferred by Standard Essential Patents. In turn, these SEP holders gain a huge competitive edge in the market and do not face any competition until they expire and move into the public domain.

3. FAIR, REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY TERMS (FRAND)

Due to the ubiquitous yearning for snowballing sale of one’s products, the market players are in a constant struggle to find the most desirable, the most profitable, and the most economically efficient techniques to garner demand for their brands. For this reason, SEPs play an unparalleled role to fulfill such wishes of the inventors. However, this also means that they have unbridled power in the market. Creating a monopoly of such SEP holders would be detrimental to the inventors, as they will have no say in the unfair and discriminatory terms brought before them. They will be forced to succumb to such terms for meeting the primary objective of every company in the market. There are a number of issues that rise during the event of licensing SEPs to other companies that inevitably cause a disruption in the unadulterated functioning of licenses in the country. A commonly occurring issue is patent holdup when an SEP holder realizes his irreplaceability in the market and consequently, causes a rise in the royalty rates to order to unjustly profit from his dominance, thereby burdening the licensee companies. Another frequent issue is royalty stacking where the companies are forced to pay for all the patents held by the SEP holder, patents that are not even incorporated by them in their products, purely under the coercion by the SEP holders of revoking the license

Hence, in order to evade such prejudiced demands of the SEP holders, the concept of FRAND was incorporated. The SSOs stress the requisite for such holders to enter into a promise to not cultivate any unwanted competitive strategies and misuse of the power granted to them. This promise is to coincide with the FRAND terms. Following the licensing strategies stated under the FRAND terms forms the basis of the standard development process. Conformance to FRAND terms guarantee that the SEP holders do not abuse their dominant position in the market and they license SEPs to desiring companies in a ‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory’ manner.

4. THE ERICSSON AND MICROMAX CASE

On the 4th of March, 2013, Ericsson filed a case of patent infringement against Micromax for eight of its SEPs which related to its 2G, 3G and EDGE devices, in the Delhi High Court. In response, on the 19th of March 2013, the Court passed an order stating that both the companies would enter into a contract under FRAND terms for the next month purely under an ad-interim arrangement, with prescribed royalties given in the table below.

A mediator was appointed to resolve the disputes between the two companies, but it was in vain. As a result, on the 24th of June 2013, Micromax filed information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, alleging Ericsson to have inculcated an abusive and unfair mode of setting royalties. On the 12th of November 2014, the Court agreed to a new set of interim arrangement for the parties wherein Micromax was asked to pay the royalty on different terms given in the table below.

 

Phones/devices Capable of GSM Capable of GPRS + GSM Capable of EDGE+ GRPS+GSM WCDMA/HSPA, calling tablets
From 19/03/2013(earlier interim order) 1.25% of sale price 1.75% of sale price 2% of sale price 2% of sale price Dongles or data cards- USD 2.50
From date of filing till 12/11/2015 (later interim order) 0.8% of net selling price 0.8% of net selling price 1% of net selling price 1% of net selling price
From 13/11/2015 to 12/11/2016 0.8% of net selling price 0.8% of net selling price 1.1% of net selling price 1.1% of net selling price
From 13/11/2016 to 12/11/2020 0.8% of net selling price 1% of net selling price 1.3% of net selling price 1.3% of net selling price

 

With regard to the complaint filed by Micromax, it was stated that Ericsson was allegedly demanding an unfair royalty for its SEPs relating to the GSM Technology. It contended that the royalty should be based on the patents relating to the chipset technology and not arbitrarily calculate the royalty as a percentage of the sales price of the licensed downstream product[7]. It also stated that Ericsson was confident that there was no alternate technology for its patents in the market and hence, Ericsson believed that it had the right to charge such royalty for its patents. Moreover, Ericsson also wanted Micromax to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, which was restrictive and was not in conformance with the FRAND terms. On the 12th of November 2013, under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, in pursuance to the complaint filed by Micromax, the CCI laid down the following:

  1. Ericsson was the largest holder of SEPs in the country with regard to 2G, 3G and 4G patents used for smart phones, tablets, etc. Due to this, it undoubtedly held a dominant position in the market for devices that use the GSM and CDMA standards.
  2. While FRAND licenses were primarily meant to prevent patent hold-up and royalty stacking, the competitive endurance showcased by such SEP holders might prove detrimental to their integrity.
  3. Ericsson’s royalty rates were excessive and absurd, and these royalties had not linkage to the patented products. Thus, it was clear that there were discriminatory and contrary to the FRAND terms.

Due to these inferences, CCI ordered for an investigation on the same matter by the Director General, which was challenged by Ericsson in the court. What happened to the case from this point shall be discussed in detail in combination with two other cases with Ericsson.

 5. ERICSSON AND INTEX CASE

In 2013, Intex had filed a suit against Ericsson on the same terms as in the case of Micromax, about setting discriminatory and unreasonable royalties for the SEPs. The CCI, on its account, ordered for an investigation along with the complaint filed in the previous case. Ericsson filed a writ petition against this move for an investigation. Alongside, it filed a suit against Intex for the alleged patent infringement of the same eight patents and demanded damages of Rs. 56 crores.

6. ERICSSON AND BEST IT WORLD (INDIA)

In November 2011, Ericsson had sent a letter to Best IT World that it had infringed the same eight patents as in the previous cases due to its GSM and WCDMA related products. Ericsson suggested both the companies get into a Global Patent Licensing Agreement (GPLA) for all the infringed patents. Best IT stated that it was interested in entering the said agreement only under the condition that Ericsson discloses the alleged infringed patents in order to find out whether the allegations were valid and enforceable in the country. Ericsson intentionally refused to respond to that request and went ahead to impose the need to draft an NDA with ten years confidentiality agreement wherein all the confidential information would be shared only with the company affiliated to it, and any disputes arising out of the same would be settled in Stockholm, Ericsson’s location of its headquarters, which was evidently onerous and one-sided.  It further stated that the license agreement to be entered into would have to apply to the previous and future sale of the company. In September 2015, Best IT filed a suit under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 against Ericsson for an abuse of dominant position.

Thus, as occurred in the cases above, the CCI ordered for an investigation to take place. Ericsson challenged the order of CCI and claimed that the order was ‘arbitrary in nature and without jurisdiction’. It was noticed by the Delhi High Court that the plea by Best IT ought to be disregarded as it had not entered into the licensing agreement with Ericsson and that it was evident that it used Ericsson’s SEPs.

ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE ERICSSON CASES

Extracting the detail from the Micromax v Ericsson case, Intex v Ericsson case and Best IT World (India) v Ericsson case about Ericsson filing writ petition against the order of CCI for investigations, as per the judgment laid down by the Delhi High Court on the 30th of March 2016, the CCI had the authority to direct the investigations as in the event of an abuse of dominance, jurisdiction lies within the scope of Competition Act. The court agreed to use the net sales prices of the downstream product as the royalty base, and ordered that the royalty for licenses based on FRAND must be derived from sound economic reasoning.

In the Micromax case, the court ordered Micromax to pay the royalties as per the rates stated in the later interim order, rates mentioned in the table.

By the judgment delivered on the 13th of March, 2015, the Delhi High Court ordered that the royalties which were stated in the case of Ericsson v Micromax shall be applicable in this case too. The only difference that lies is that the court ordered Intex to pay 50% of the royalty as per total selling price per device and not chipset, from the date of filing of the suit till 1st of March, 2015, shall be paid directly to Ericsson by way of a bank draft within four weeks from the date of the judgement. The balance shall be secured with a bank guarantee within the said four weeks with the Registrar General, who would invest the same in an FDR for twelve months.

As per the order passed on the 2nd of September, 2015, the court declared that Best IT World must restrict importing mobiles, handsets, devices, tablets, etc. all articles that infringe the patents of Ericsson, which would be operative from the 9th of September, 2015.

7. ERICSSON AND XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY

Ericsson had filed a patent infringement suit for eight of its patents essential to 2G and 3G standards registered in India, against Xiaomi in December 2014. Ericsson had requested to obtain license from it before it sold the infringing products in India, but Xiaomi had entered into an agreement with Flipkart Internet Private Limited to sell the products under Xiaomi’s name. It had begun launching such products from the month of July 2014. Subsequently, the court had issued an injunction order against Xiaomi to restrain the import or sale of its infringing device. Xiaomi appealed to the injunction stating that it had entered into a ‘Multi Product License Agreement’ with Qualcomm Incorporated and used the chipset, which in turn was licensed to Qualcomm by Ericsson. Thus, it argued that it had not infringed any of Ericsson’s patents. As an interim measure, on the 16th of December 2014, the court allowed Xiaomi to sell only those devices that contained the chipsets, which were licensed by Qualcomm and had to deposit Rs.100 per device with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court.

On the 22nd of April, 2016, the Court revoked the interim injunction on Xiaomi on account of concealment of significant information regarding the alleged infringing patents, by Ericsson. It laid down that Xiaomi was using the 3G patents licensed by Qualcomm, which in turn was licensed to it by Ericsson. The amount of royalty paid by Xiaomi to Qualcomm was provided to Ericsson as royalty and hence, there lay no requirement of paying royalty directly to Ericsson.

8. ERICSSON AND LAVA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Ericsson challenged Lava in a suit for patent infringement related to its AMR, GSM and EDGE technologies. On an order passed by the Delhi High Court in March 2015, both the companies tried to negotiate an agreement on FRAND terms but it was in vain. An interim order was passed by the Delhi High Court, operative from the 21st of June, 2016, ordering an injunction to prevent the import, export, manufacture and sale of mobile phones that use the concerned patents of Ericsson. The final order on the case is still pending before the Court.

With the judiciary at the brim of delivering justice to the deserving, the SSOs and various organization striving to protect the rights and inventions of the lawful owners, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board to discuss matters of concern of the distressed, and the laws on various aspects merging to bridge the gap between the people and justice, it is almost impossible to fathom a situation wherein the aggrieved parties could not be redressed. The only aspect which have to be looked into by these mechanisms is its clear and untainted practice. The salvo of the dominance and power of multi-national companies being fired at domestic companies who strive to maintain a position in the market have to be adjudicated in a fair manner, without any involvement of duress and coercion. The elixir of righteousness lies in the hands of these deciding authorities. The real question here is ‘Would the adjudicators choose impartiality and morality, or would they surrender to dominance?’

About the Author : Ms. Anjana Mohan, Symbiosis Law School, Pune, intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. Views expressed in this article are solely of the intern and do not reflect the views of either of any of the employees or employers. Queries regarding this may be directed to swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com or swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com.

9. REFERENCES

1. ONLINE NEWSPAPER/ MAGAZINE/BLOG ARTICLES

a. Narula, Ranjan. “Standard Essential Patents.” Rouse The Magazine, 2015. Available On Http://Www.Rouse.Com/Magazine/News/Standard-Essential-Patents/?Tag=India

b. Rao D And Shabana N, Standard Essential Patents, Singhania & Partners, Available On Http://Www.Singhania.In/Wp-Content/Uploads/2016/04/Standard-Essential-Patents.Pdf

c. Lakshane R, “Compilation of Mobile Phone Patent Litigation Cases in India”, The Centre for Internet & Society, Available on http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/compilation-of-mobile-phone-patent-litigation-cases-in-india

d. Chawla K, “Ericsson v. Intex, Part 1- SEPs, Injunctions, and gathering clouds for Software Patenting?”, SpicyIP, available on http://spicyip.com/2015/03/ericsson-v-intex-part-1-seps-and-injunctions-and-a-new-era-of-software-patenting.html

2. ONLINE JOURNALS AND OTHER GUIDELINES

a. Sidak G, Frand In India: The Delhi High Court’s Emerging Jurisprudence On Royalties For Standard-Essential Patents, Journel Of Intellectual Property Law & Practise, 2015, Vol. 100, No.8, Available On Https://Www.Criterioneconomics.Com/Docs/Frand-In-India-Royalties-For-Standard-Essential-Patents.Pdf

b. Meniere Y, ‘Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (Frand) Licensing Terms’, Jrc Science And Policy Report, 2015, Available On Http://Is.Jrc.Ec.Europa.Eu/Pages/Isg/Euripidis/Documents/05.Frandreport.Pdf

c. Department Of Industrial Policy And Promotion, Ministry Of Commerce & Industry, Government Of India, Discussion Paper On Standard Essential Patents And Their Availability On Frand Terms, Available On Http://Www.Ipindia.Nic.In/Whats_New/Standardessentialpaper_01march2016.Pdf

d. Agreement On Technical Barriers To Trade, Annexure I, Available At Https://Www.Wto.Org/English/Docs_E/Legal_E/17-Tbt.Pdf

e. Delhi High Court Cases, available on http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/

f. Indiankanoon, available on http://indiankanoon.com/

Expedited examination and non-expedited (normal) examination: Who can file request for examination?

With effect from May 16, 2016 (effective date for Patent (amendment) rules, 2016), provision of expedited examination was introduced in the Patent system of India. This article does not intend to discuss the different timelines within which request for examination has to be filed in different situations, rather article is restricted to the eligibility of person who can file such requests. Specifically, article intends to highlight the difference between person who is eligible for non-expedited examination and expedited examination.

Section 11B (1) of the Patent Act, 1970 provides that no application for a patent shall be examined unless the applicant or any other interested person makes a request in the prescribed manner for such examination within the prescribed period.

According to section 2 (t), interested person is defined as including a person engaged in, or in promoting, research in the same field as that to which the invention relates.

Rule 24 (B) and rule 24 (C) provide procedures for the non-expedited (normal) examination and expedited examination respectively.

Rule 24 (B) (3) provides that  applicant as well any interested person can request for non-expedited examination, however in latter case, only intimation is given to such interested person, and examination report is shared with the applicant only.

Rule 24 (C)(1) deals with eligibility of person who can request for non-expedited examination.

Rule 24 (C)(1):

An applicant may file a request for expedited examination in Form 18A along with the fee as specified in the first schedule only by electronic transmission duly authenticated within the period prescribed in rule 24B on any of the following grounds, namely:-

(a) that India has been indicated as the competent International Searching Authority or elected as an

International Preliminary Examining Authority in the corresponding international application; or

(b) that the applicant is a startup.

Rule 24 (C)(2) provides for conversion of non-expedited examination to expedited examination.

Rule 24 (C)(2):

A request for examination filed under rule 24B may be converted to a request for expedited examination under sub-rule (1) of rule 24C by paying the relevant fees and submitting requisite documents as required under sub-rule (1). (Emphasis added).

As seen in section 11 (B)(1), there is no categorical difference provided in the eligibility to request for expedited and non-expedited examination (that interested person cannot request for expedited examination). But there is no parallel sub-rule as like 24 (B)(3) in rule 24 (C) and also rule 24 (C)(1) also puts restriction of applicant.

However, what if interested person submits documents available in the public domain to convert a non-expedited examination to expedited examination (by paying the required fees)? Though it is not categorically given that it cannot be done, language of 24 (C)(1) which restricts eligibility to applicant and absence of parallel provision as like 24 (B)(3) in rule 24 (C)indicates that interested person cannot convert non-expedited examination to expedited examination even after paying fees and submitting documents available in public domain that a particular applicant is eligible for expedited examination.

However it would be interesting to see if Indian Patent Office (IPO) faces such question and how it tackles the same.

About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Teva held responsible for Induced Infringement of Eli Lilly’s Blockbuster drug ALITMA

In Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.; APP Pharmaceuticals LLC; Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to be as Defendants/Appellants/Teva) Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff/Appelle/Eli Lilly) decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on January 12, 2017, Plaintiff had filed Hatch Waxman suit against defendant to prevent them from launching generic version of the lung cancer drug whose rights are reserved with the plaintiff. The decision from CAFC came after an appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in No. 1:10-cv-01376-TWPDKL, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.

Eli Lilly owns a patent US 7772209 (hereinafter referred to as US‘209) issued in 2010, relating to method of treatment administering the chemotherapy drug pemetrexed disodium (hereinafter referred to as “pemetrexed”) (used to treat certain types of lung cancer and mesothelioma) after pretreatment with two common vitamins—folic acid and vitamin B12 (reduce the toxicity of pemetrexed in patients). Eli Lilly markets pemetrexed under the brand name ALIMTA®.

In 2008-2009, Defendants notified Eli Lilly that they had submitted ANDA seeking approval to market generic version of ALIMTA®. After issuance of US’209 patent, Teva sent additional notice that they had filed Para IV certifications, declaring that US’209 patent was invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed. Subsequent to which Eli Lilly alleged Teva of induced infringement. Eli Lilly asserted that Teva’s generic drug would be administered with folic acid and vitamin B12 pretreatments and thus will result in infringement of the 209 patent.

Eli Lilly asserted claims 9, 10 (dependent on claim 1), Independent claim 12, and its dependent claims 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 of the US’209 patent at trial.

Independent claims 1 and 12 have been reproduced below for reference:

Claim 1:

A method of administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof comprising administering an effective amount of folic acid and an effective amount of a methylmalonic acid lowering agent followed by administering an effective amount of pemetrexed disodium, wherein the methylmalonic acid lowering agent is selected from the group consisting of vitamin B12, hydroxycobalamin, cyano-10-chlorocobalamin, aquocobalamin perchlorate, aquo-10-cobalamin perchlorate, azidocobalamin, cobalamin, cyanocobalamin, or chlorocobalamin.

Claim 12:

An improved method for administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need of chemotherapeutic treatment, wherein the improvement comprises:

  1. a) administration of between about 350 μg and about 1000 μg of folic acid prior to the first administration of pemetrexed disodium;
  2. b) administration of about 500 μg to about 1500 μg of vitamin B12, prior to the first administration of pemetrexed disodium; and
  3. c) administration of pemetrexed disodium.

It is important to note that current case involves issue of induced infringement i.e. a type of indirect infringement that may be committed under section 271 (b) (dealing with infringement of Patents).

In June 2013, Defendants conditionally conceded induced infringement under then-current law set forth in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Akamai II) which at that time was the subject of a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The parties’ stipulation included a provision reserving Defendants’ right to litigate infringement if the Supreme Court reversed or vacated Akamai II.

District court had rejected contentions of the defendant that Patent was invalid for obviousness or obviousness-type double patenting and also due to indefiniteness of the term vitamin B12.

Defendants filed an appeal on invalidity. While that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court reversed Akamai II, holding that liability for inducement cannot be found without direct infringement, and remanding for CAFC court to possibly reconsider the standards for direct infringement. In view of that development, the parties in this case filed a joint motion to remand the matter to the district court for the limited purpose of litigating infringement. CAFC granted the motion.

The district court held a second bench trial in May 2015 and concluded in a decision issued on August 25, 2015 that Defendants would induce infringement of the US’209 patent. This was after considering the effect of Akamai V decision, which had broadened the circumstances in which others’ acts may be attributed to a single actor to support direct infringement liability in cases of divided infringement.

Defendants appealed.

Below given factors are taken into consideration while deciding cases of induced infringement:

  • Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an

Infringer;

  • There cannot be indirect infringement without direct infringement;
  • Patentee needs to prove alleged infringer knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements; and
  • Standard of proof required by Patentee to claim relief under induced infringement is ‘preponderance of the evidence’.

It was agreed by parties that Defendants’ proposed product labeling would be materially the same as the ALIMTA® product labeling and consists of two documents: the Physician Prescribing Information and the Patient Information. District court found that both the documents included instructions regarding the administration of folic acid—the step that the district court found would be performed by patients but attributable to physicians.

According to Akamai V, where no single actor performs all steps of a method claim, direct infringement only occurs if the acts of one are attributable to the other such that a single entity is responsible for the infringement. The performance of method steps is attributable to a single entity in two types of circumstances:

  • when that entity “directs or controls” others’ performance, or

 

  • when the actors “form a joint enterprise.”

In Akamai V, CAFC had held that directing or controlling others’ performance includes circumstances in which an actor:

(1) “conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit” upon others’ performance of one or more steps of a patented method, and

(2) “establishes the manner or timing of that performance.”

District court found taking folic acid in the manner recited by the asserted claims is a critical and necessary step to reduce potentially life threatening toxicities caused by the Pemetrexed amounts to receive the benefit of the patented method.

Regarding first of the two pronged test, the court found, based on the product labeling, that taking folic acid in the manner specified is a condition of the patient’s participation in the Pemetrexed treatment. Regarding the second prong, the court found that physicians would prescribe an exact dose of folic acid and direct that it be ingested daily. Hence court held all steps of the asserted claims would be attributable to physicians.

Court further observed that the mere existence of direct infringement by physicians, while necessary to find liability for induced infringement, is not sufficient for inducement but there has to be also specific intent and action to induce infringement. Court went on to find intent on the part of physician for the inducement and held that there was no error in district court’s decision. Some important observations of court have been mentioned below.

CAFC made two important observations as below:

  • The intent for inducement must be with respect to the actions of the underlying direct infringer, here physicians.

 

  • Second, it is not required to show evidence regarding the general prevalence of the induced activity. When the alleged inducement relies on a drug label’s instructions, the question is not just whether those instructions describe the infringing mode,..but whether the instructions teach an infringing use such that we are willing to infer from those instructions an affirmative intent to infringe the patent. Court further observed that the label must encourage, recommend, or promote infringement and it is irrelevant that some users may ignore the warnings in the proposed label.

Court went on to observe a label that instructed users to follow the instructions in an infringing manner was sufficient even though some users would not follow the instructions, but vague instructions that require one to look outside the label to understand the alleged implicit encouragement do not, without more, induce infringement.

On the issue of invalidity on the indefiniteness of the term “vitamin B12”, CAFC hold that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claim term “vitamin B12” with reasonable certainty. Applying Nautilus (outcome of this decision) in this case did not lead CAFC to a different result from the district court’s conclusion on the question of indefiniteness.

Regarding issue of invalidity due to obviousness, CAFC was not convinced that the district court committed clear error in concluding that Defendants failed to carry their burden of proving that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use vitamin B12 pretreatment to reduce Pemetrexed toxicities.

Thus CAFC affirmed district court decision.

About the Author :  Ms. Rashmi Goswami, WOS-C at TIFAC, intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com

Obtaining a Certificate of Recognition from DIPP for IPR benefits

“A start-up would now require only a certificate of recognition from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and would not be required to be examined by the inter-ministerial board, as was being done earlier. This is one rapid change that we have brought in,” said  Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister of Commerce and Industry in New Delhi at the ‘Start-up India States’ Conference’ in  2016.

This has been done to improve the ease of doing business by entrepreneurs, when earlier there was a complex and elaborate process of approaching the inter-ministerial board to procure the IPR benefits. After May 16, 2016, Start-Ups have been made eligible for expedited examination of Patent Applications.

This post particularly discusses the procedure of obtaining a ‘Certificate of Recognition’ from Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) before and after filing the Application of Patent.

Procedure to be followed varies depending on whether Start-Up has applied for Patent (and the application is published) or has not applied yet.

Type 1:

The procedure below is only for applicants who have NOT filed the application of patent.

The Application form is available on http://www.startupindia.gov.in/registration.php

Click on Startup India Services > Startup Recognition > Application.

  1. Fill the required information regarding the following ;
      a. Name of the Entity;
      b. Nature of the Entity – Private Limited Company/Limited Liability Company/Registered Partnership
      c. Incorporation/Registered No.
      d. Date of Incorporation/Registration
      e. Address of Registered Office
      f. Details of authorized representative
      g. Details of Directors/Partners
  2. Either of the following supporting documents are required to be filed in the Application for the Certificate.
      a. Letter of Recommendation, in a form specified by the DIPP from an incubator recognized by Government of India  ;or
      b. Letter of support by any incubator which is funded, in relation to the project, from Government of India or State Government as a part of specified scheme to promote innovation ; or

A panel of facilitators has been constituted for providing assistance and support in filing applications for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), wherein, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) would bear the facilitation cost. The list of the Incubators is available on ; –http://startupindia.gov.in/uploads/pdf/List_of_facilitators_for_patents.pdf

      c. Letter of Recommendation, in a form specified by the DIPP from an incubator established in post-graduate college in India; or.
      d. Letter of funding from the Government of India or any State Government as a part of specified scheme to promote innovation; or – If the Government of India or State Government has provided funds as a part of any scheme to promote innovation to the applicant, a Letter of Funding by GOI or State Government is admissible as a legit document to be submitted.
      e. Letter of funding of not less than 20 percent in equity by any Incubation Fund/Angel Fund/Private Equity Fund/Accelerator/Angel Network duly registered with Securities Exchange Board of India that endorses innovative nature of the business – If SEBI has funded,  not less than 20% in equity by any above mentioned Funds which endorses the innovative nature of the business of the entity to the applicant, A Letter of Funding by SEBI can be submitted.
      f. Letter of recommendation from Industry association recognized by DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY POLICY AND PROMOTION – A Recommendation  Letter can be obtained by any Industry Association or Organisation which is recognized by DIPP.

The list of Industries/Organisations which can provide for the letter of Recommendation  are available on www.startupindia.gov.in .

Click on Information> List of Industry Association/Organisations for Recommendation Letter.

  1. Incorporation or Registration Certificate- Company/ Partnership Incorporation/LLP/ Registration Certificate is MANDATORY to be submitted.
  2. A Brief note or a supporting document regarding the innovativeness of the idea of the product or services offered by the entity.
  3. With respect to tax benefits, note that, if you opt for tax benefits, your application will go to the Inter–Ministerial Board for evaluation, which may take time. If your aim is only to obtain benefits related to IPR, you can refrain from choosing the tax benefits option.

The FORMAT for the above mentioned “Letter of Recommendation,  Letter of Support from Incubator, Letter of Funding from SEBI, Recommendation letter from Industry Association/Organisation”  is available on http://www.startupindia.gov.in/startup-recognition.php

An application for a certificate is processed within a period of 10-25 working days from the date of Application, if accepted, the certificate is available to be procured.

Type 2:

The points below discuss the procedure for obtaining a Certificate of Recognition for applicants who have filed for patent and the same is published.

  1. Visit http://startupindia.gov.in/uploads/pdf/List_of_facilitators_for_patents.pdf and fill in the details requested in the form as mentioned above.
  2. Against Nature of Recommendation, Select “Patent filed and published in the Journal by the India Patent Office in areas affiliated with the nature of business being promoted”.
  3. Against “Supporting document based on the nature of recommendation selected above”, upload journal extract of publication of your patent application.
  4. Upload Incorporation/ Registration Certificate.
  5. Against “Brief note on innovativeness of products /services offered by the entity”, upload a document in PDF format that provides details relating to the nature of business of your company and why products /services offered by your company is innovative.
  6. As mentioned above, with respect to tax benefits, note that, if you opt for tax benefits, your application will go to the Inter–Ministerial Board for evaluation, which may take time. If your aim is only to obtain benefits related to IPR, you can refrain from choosing the tax benefits option.
  7. Submit the application upon self-certification.

PENALTY FOR FALSE REGISTRATION:
If the application is found to be obtained, without uploading the document or uploading any other document or a forged document, the concerned applicant shall be liable to a fine which shall be fifty per cent of paid up capital of the startup but shall not be less than Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).

About the Author: Himani Kohli, D.E.S Law College (Fergusson Capmus), Intern at Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com

Effect of Union Budget, 2017 on the R&D/ Intellectual Property Practices in India

Union budget that was highly waited for (after demonetization) had gained more attention also due to preponing to February 01, 2017.

As a matter of fact, every year budget has certain impact on various industries including IP industry and R&D sectors. In this article, we will try to analyze possible effects of 2017 budget on R&D/Intellectual Property (IP) Practices in India. Though there were no special funds/incentives proposed for R&D, budget did have certain announcements for indirect effect on the IP practices.

  1. With intent made clear in budget 2015 itself, in 2017 Hon’ble Finance Minister Arun Jaitley proposed that corporate income tax for smaller companies with annual turnover upto INR 50 CR be reduced to 25%.

In 2016, FM had proposed that companies with turnover less than INR 5 CR would have to pay tax less by 1% and new manufacturing companies who do not avail of any exemption would be charged only 25%.

 This move will make sure that medium size companies do not pay more tax as compared to larger companies as observed in 2015-2016, wherein 2.85 lakh companies making profit of less than INR 1 CR had to pay effective tax rate of 30.26% while 298 companies making profit of more than 500 CR paid effective tax rate of 25.90%.

This reduction in tax rate is likely to give smaller companies flexibility to invest saved 5% in R&D activities.


  1. FM also believes pushing digital transactions further would enable small and micro enterprises to access formal credit. He also made clear that Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) will be encouraged by government to refinance credit institutions which provide unsecured loans at reasonable interest rates to borrowers based on their transaction history. This is likely to give higher chances of eligibility to IP driven companies not having strong collateral.

  2. Focus on startups in 2016 seems to be continued in 2017 as well. Among the schemes announced for start-ups, eligibility for start-ups for expedited examination of Patent Applications was a great move. In 2017, government aiming to heavily utilize technology for pushing initiatives such as SWAYAM (providing opportunities for a life-long learning) and DIGIGAON (providing telemedicines, education and skills through digital technology), start-ups would never want to miss an opportunity to contribute through innovative ideas for the facilitation of implementation of schemes.

  3. In another move to encourage start-ups, in 2016 it was announced that 100% deduction would be available for any 3 consecutive assessment years out of 5 years beginning from the year in which the eligible start-up is incorporated with the condition that total turnover of eligible start-up should not exceed Rs. 25 Crore in any of the previous years beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2016 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2021. In 2017 budget, period of 5 years has been changed to 7 years.

  4. Research and Development Cess Act, 1986 is proposed to be repealed. Reduction in tax cost to the extent of 5% (R&D cess) on technology imports. Subsequently, service tax at 15% to be paid in full.

  5. On a disappointing note, there seems to be no separate incentive for R&D.

All in all, though there seem to be some encouraging proposals nothing substantial is coming to the way of IP fraternity as was provided in last year budget in the light of Make in India Regime. But this is not totally surprising as on all fronts, budget seems to be a cautious approach (understandable in light of other measures such as demonetization and GST being radical).

REVOCATION OF PATENTS ACCORDING TO INDIAN PATENT ACT, 1970: INSIGHT

This article focuses on the revocation proceedings which is one of the mechanisms available for annulations of Patents in India.

  1. What is revocation of a patent?

When a patent has been sealed or granted, it is not always the case that the patent shall stay unhindered by any third party till the life of the patent. The patent can be challenged by certain people on different grounds, and a method to cause the same is by filing a revocation petition/ post-grant opposition proceedings. This article focuses on the revocation proceedings.

  1. Why does one file a revocation petition?

As the Patent Act does not presume Patents granted to be valid, rights granted on such Patents cannot be absolute. Third parties which are required to seek permission from Patentee for practicing any of the exclusive rights bestowed upon him are also given a chance to challenge the validity of the Patents. This challenge can be instituted on own as well as on Patentee asserting infringement of Patent rights.

  1. Who can file a revocation petition?

As per Section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970, the following persons can file the petition in the High Court:

  • any person interested[1];
  • the Central Government
  • the person making the counter-claim in a suit for the infringement of a patent
  1. Where can a revocation petition be filed?

Thus, a revocation petition can be filed in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board by the interested person or the Central Government, or it can be filed as a counter-claim in a suit for infringement at the High Court.

To bring in the aspect about jurisdiction of suits of infringement and the corresponding revocation petitions, Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 states that no suit of infringement can be brought before a court inferior to the District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit and in the event of a counter-claim for revocation of the patent made by the defendant, such suit for infringement and the said counter-claim must be transferred to the High Court.

  1. What are the grounds under which a revocation petition can be brought?

Under Section 64, the following are the said grounds:

  1. the invention, so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification, was claimed in a valid claim of earlier priority date contained in the complete specification of another patent granted in India;
  2. the patent was granted on the application of a person not entitled to apply therefor;
  3. the patent was obtained wrongfully in contravention of the rights or the petitioner or any person under or through whom he claims;
  4. the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention;
  5. the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly known to publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim or to what was published in India or elsewhere in any of the documents referred to in Section 13;
  6. the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious or does not involve any inventive step, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India or what was published in India or elsewhere before the priority date of the claim;
  7. the invention, so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification, is not useful;
  8. the complete specification does not sufficiently and fairly describe the invention and the method by which it is to be performed, that is to say, that the description of the method or the instructions for the working of the invention as contained in the complete specification are not by themselves sufficient to enable a person in India possessing average skill in, and average knowledge of the art to which the invention relates, to work the invention, or that it does not disclose the best method of performing it which was known to the applicant for the patent and for which he was entitled to claim protection;
  9. that the scope of any claim of the complete specification is not sufficiently and clearly defined or that any claim of the complete specification is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification;
  10. that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation;
  11. that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not patentable under this Act;
  12. that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was secretly used in India, otherwise than as mentioned in sub-section (3), before the priority date of the claim;
  13. that the applicant for the patent has failed to disclose to the Controller the information required by section 8 or has furnished information which in any material particular was false to his knowledge;
  14. that the applicant contravened any direction for secrecy passed under section 35
  15. that leave to amend the complete specification under section 57 or section 58 was obtained by fraud.
  16. that the complete specification does not disclose or wrongly mentions the source or geographical origin of biological material used for the invention;
  17. that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was anticipated having regard to the knowledge, oral or otherwise, available within any local or indigenous community in India or elsewhere.
  1. Does revocation restrict itself to Section 64?

It is important to note that section 64 does not restrict grounds to be used in revocation to only those provided in section 64 whereas section 25 (2) setting out grounds used in post-grant opposition proceedings is restrictive in nature.

  1. What are the other provisions concerning revocation?

Under Section 65, if a patent is claimed to be related to atomic energy, a revocation petition can be filed against it. Such patent shall not be granted under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and shall be revoked. Under Section 66, if the Central Government is of the opinion that a patent or the mode in which it is exercised was mischievous to the State or prejudicial to the public, after giving an opportunity to the patentee to be heard, it may make such declaration in the Official Gazette and the patent shall stand revoked.

Moreover in the Enercon (India) Ltd and Ors. v Enercon Gmbh (2014) 5 SCC 1 , it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when post grant opposition proceedings are instituted by a party, he cannot institute a revocation petition or counter-claim of revocation proceeding against the same patent.

  1. “‘Person interested’ under Section 64 would mean a person who has a direct, present and tangible commercial interest which is injured or affected by the continuance of the patent on the register. (Ajay Industrial Corporation v Shiro Kanao of Ibaraki City AIR 1983 Del 496)”

About the Author :  Ms. Anjana Mohan, Symbiosis Law School, Pune, intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. Views expressed in this article are solely of the intern and do not reflect the views of either of any of the employees or employers. Queries regarding this may be directed to swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com or swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com.