Category Archives: Int’l Practice and Policy

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

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 … Continue reading

Posted in Int'l Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review of Indian Working Requirements

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 … Continue reading

Posted in Int'l Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

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 … Continue reading

Posted in Int'l Practice and Policy, Obviousness | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Deposit of Biological Material – Impact on Validity of Priority Claim

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  

Posted in Int'l Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment