Archive for the ‘Int’l Practice and Policy’ Category

Canada’s ‘’Sister” Prior Art Law Differs From Ours, Eh!

Tuesday, October 29th, 2013

I recently received a well-written post from Smart & Biggar/Feherstonhaugh in Toronto reminding me that a publication by the inventor only shields a later third-party publication from being a bar if the second publication was derived from the inventor and a Canadian application – not a U.S. application—is filed by the inventor within a year of the inventor’s publication. This is not the same as the AIA provisions that allow a publication by the first inventor to avoid the prior art effect of a second publication of the invention, made by a third-party, so long as the first inventor files anywhere within a year of his/her publication.

You can find the entire post here.

Review of Indian Working Requirements

Wednesday, August 21st, 2013

This newsletter (attached below) from a leading Indian firm, contains a good review of the perils of the working requirement in India. It also provides a good summary of three recent decisions holding pharma patents invalid for obviousness. What is striking is that the judicial hostility in India to “add-on” drug patents now seems reflected in recent Fed. Cir. opinions that are “anti-patent,” at least as considered by the innovator companies.


NOVARTIS A.G. v. UOI – What is Novelty in Indian Courts?

Monday, April 8th, 2013

Can everything old be made new again?  Lots has been written about the Indian Supreme Court rejecting a patent application claiming a crystal modification of imatinib mesylate (Gleevec), which is used to treat CML.  Novartis’ attempt to “evergreen” Gleevec with this patent – which will not expire until May of 2019 – failed in India.  I think the below linked newsletter account of the rationale of the court, from Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, a leading Indian law firm, is the best I have encountered so far, so I won’t try to summarize it.

IPR Amicus Newsletter


Deposit of Biological Material – Impact on Validity of Priority Claim

Friday, March 1st, 2013

Please find linked below a guest post from Dr. Stefan Danner dealing with a new decision of the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal concerning the deposit of biological material.

Biotech IP Newsletter