Technology & Law

The law follows the technology...

Topics

DHC BRINGS DOWN THE VIVA-VOCE CUT OFF MARKS FOR PATENT AGENT EXAM

First posted: spicyip.com on 15.03.2012In a recent decision, (Ms. Anvita Singh v. Union of India and Another) the Delhi High Court (DHC), has directed the Patent Office to register a candidate as a patent agent who had passed the the written portion but failed in the viva-voce.  In particular, the DHC has struck down the rule prescribing minimum 50 per cent marks in the viva-voce part of the patent agent examination.  The patent office may now give less weightage to the viva voce examination by prescribing lesser minimum marks, but capped at a maximum of 25%.  Hat tip: Sushant Singh, lawyer for the candidate Anvita Singh.This decision is an extremely welcome one for candidates wishing ... Continue reading

DOES SIZE MATTER: THE CASE OF AN ANTI-NARCOLEPTIC DRUG, MODAFINIL?

First posted on spicyip.com on July 30, 2011 Modafinil About a month ago, the UK Chancery division patents courts (England and Wales) rendered an opinion (Justice Floyd) regarding claim construction in defining size of particles of an anti-narcoleptic drug, modafinil, in pharmaceutical compositions.  The patent court construed patent claims to determine whether there is an infringement, if any.  Facts:  The dispute involves three patents related to the drug modafinil, used to treat sleep disorders such as narcolepsy.  Orchid Europe is the manufacturer of generic modafinil and Mylan intended to manufacture the drug in UK.   Cephalon is the proprietor, an exclusive li... Continue reading

SHOULD THERE BE A NUMERICAL QUANTIFIER FOR SECTION 3(D)?

First posted on spicyip.com on May 31, 2010Claim 1 of patent 207232 provides: The compound 2-(2-amino-l,6-dihydro-6-oxo-purin-9-yl) methoxy-3-hydroxy-l-propanyl-L-valinate or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, in the form of its (R)- or (S)-diastereomers, or in the form of mixtures of the two diastereomers. The reasoning for §3(d) is based upon an obviousness analysis (§§ 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja) inventive step). But the decision cannot substitute an obviousness analysis for the analysis required under § 3(d), because § 3(d) sets a higher bar than the inventive step analysis. In this case, the mono ester was demonstrated to have more bio-availability compared to that of bis ester of ... Continue reading