iPhone Patent: Apple's Location-aware Advertising

It looks like Augmented Reality (AR) is the next big battleground for the world's information brokers. While Google's Patent Application is exploring new ways to introduce ads into Google Streetview, Apple is trying to stake its claim over the new AR frontier by obtaining patent (US Patent Application No 20100011304) pending for its iPhone which will enable advertisers know where you are. The patent allows an icon to be created for a contact on the home screen. The icon associated with an entity (say KFC) can be temporarily displayed on the mobile device based on the proximity of the mobile device (when you are hovering around a shopping mall which has KFC in it) to the entity. This allows KFC to locate iPhone users around it and relay directions, offers, discounts and deals (by Wi-Fi) on to your iPhone. The icon disappears when the iPhone user leaves the vicinity of KFC.

Patently Apple has more here.

Patenting Research Tools

THE RESEARCH-INTENSIVE BIOTECH industry credits its phenomenal growth to the development of ground-breaking research tools like the recombinant DNA technology, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the hybridoma technique. Research tools provide the basic foundation for applied downstream research. Many experts have argued that patenting research tools can change the culture of science. The Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008 modelled on the Bayh-Dole Act of the US allows universities and research institutions to patent basic research. My article titled "Does Patenting Research change the culture of Science?" appeared in The Hindu and the same can be read here.

New Book on Patents: "The Touchstone Effect"

My new book on patents - "The Touchstone Effect: The Impact of Pre-grant Opposition on Patents" is out! Among other things, the book explores the strategic use of pre-grant opposition as a touchstone to check the genuineness of inventions. As with my earlier book, "The Law of Patents - With a Special Focus on Pharmaceuticals in India" which is presently updated free of cost through a blog, this book too has on online companion (click here for the blog) where you can find more about the book - you can search and download more than 55 decisions of the Patent Controller on pre-grant opposition (click here).

The book is available at the LexisNexis Online Bookstore. My publishers will ship the book to any where in India for just Re 1. Keeping the touch with the difficult times that lie ahead of us, the book is priced at Rs.295 /-

Bibliographic details:

Title: The Touchstone Effect: The Impact of Pre-grant Opposition on Patents
Author: Feroz Ali Khader
Publisher: LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur
ISBN: 9788180385544
Format: Soft Cover
Edition: 2009
Price: INR 295.00 / US$ 14.75
Pages: xx + 166 pages (Appendices starts from pg 137, followed by Chapter Notes and Subject Index).

American Cynamid Rules!

THE UNANIMITY WITH which Roche and Cipla agreed on the applicability of the American Cyanamid decision and the manner in which the same was applied by the Delhi High Court in the interlocutory stage of the infringement case, reaffirms our faith in the Cyanamid approach. We had earlier remarked here, in the context of the Bajaj-TVS case, on the courts' approach to granting interim injunctions. The Roche-Cipla order illustrates with great clarity on how the Cyanamid approach is to be applied. Unfortunately, we notice that the court did not make any determination on the 'adequacy of damages' which is a vital cog in the Cyanamid approach. My article analysing this issue titled "It's American Cyanamid again on patents vs access to medicines" appeared in today's DNA Money and the same can be read here.

Patents and Medical Tourism

THE ISSUES SURROUNDING the Erlotinib patent present an ideal illustration of the complexities that embrangle patent law. 'Public health', 'public interest', 'access to life-saving medicines', 'compulsory licences' are some of the issues that have cropped up in what should have otherwise been a run-of-the-mill patent infringement case. And the fact that the consequences which result from the case are 'far-reaching' needs no further testimony than the proposed plan to obtain an involuntary licence for export to Nepal. The sale of the drug in Nepal may lead to interesting economic consequences which I have discussed in a short piece which appeared in the FICCI's Spotlight magazine. My article titled "Patents and Medical Tourism - How Compulsory Licences can Trigger Travel Seeking Affordable Health Solutions" appeared in the Guest Column at page 3 in the March Issue. The same can be read here.

Court's Approach in Granting Interim Injunctions

THE APPROACH FOLLOWED by the courts in granting or refusing interim injunctions has not been a consistent one, especially when the matter pertains to 'heavy' intellectual property cases, like the ones involving patents. That new technology can be mind-boggling seems to have bothered the judiciary which now spends considerable time (at the expense of other pending matters) hearing these heavy matters even at the interim stage. Such exclusive attention may be good for the litigants whose get undivided attention of the court in matters where their business interests are at stake. But from a systemic level, it portrays a sad state of affairs. My article in today's The Hindu Business Line brings forth the problems we will face if we follow the traditional approach of deciding a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable hardship (the three elements to be satisfied for the grant of an interim injunction) and proposes a more efficient, equitable and time-saving approach in granting injunction. The article is available here.

Silences in the TRIPS Agreement

THE STANDARD OF patentability in the TRIPS Agreement is a matter that eludes consensus. When the vital constitutents of patentability ie 'novelty', 'inventive step' and 'industrial application' were left undefined in the TRIPS, it was almost certain that member countries of the WTO would take liberties in defining them. One instance of the exercise of such liberty is our own definition of 'inventive step' in section 2(1)(ja) which adds 'technical advancement' and 'economic significance' over and above the classic requirement of 'obviousness to a person skilled in the art'. Neither do the open list of exceptions to patentability in the TRIPS Agreement help in defining the standard. When the standard of patentability advocated by the TRIPS is unclear, the question of domestic laws confirming to that standard has to be viewed more critically. My article on this issue appeard in today's DNA Money and the same can be read here.

Do Indian Patent Laws Stifle Research?

DO INDIAN PATENT laws stifle research is a question that has been repeatedly posed ever since the Madras High Court rendered its decision on the constitutional validity of section 3(d) of the Patents Act 1970. I have contributed a piece to this debate which appeared in today's The Hindu which can be read here.

Novartis Decision and the Flexibilities in TRIPS

THE RECENT DECISION of the Madras High Court rejecting the challenge to section 3(d) of the Patents Act 1970 can be viewed as a positive step in upholding the flexibilitis available under the TRIPS Agreement. The link to my article that appeared in today's DNA Money on this issue can be found here.

Book on the Law of Patents

My book “The Law of Patents – With a Special Focus on Pharmaceuticals in India” published by LexisNexis is finally out. The book is the first one of its kind to concentrate on the critical and hitherto unexplored area of pharmaceutical patents, especially in the Indian context. The book covers the general law of patents and has a special focus on pharmaceuticals. As a counsel who was involved in the Novartis-Gleevec cases (EMR, challenge to constitutional validity of section 3(d), rejection of patent application), I have tried to give a closer view on various aspects of the case. The book covers opposition proceedings in great detail (over 60 pages of commentary). There is also a separate chapter on exclusive marketing rights.

I have started a blog for the book with the hope that readers will give contribute to the development of this book. I hope to provide timely updates to the book, citing relevant paragraph numbers, on this blog. You may subscribe to the updates by entering your email id here.

Anyone who will be interested in reviewing my book may write to me here.

Read the book’s introduction here.

Read the detailed table of contents here.

Read about the book and author here.

Download order form here.

Bibliographic details: ISBN 978 81 8083 150 8. Price Rs 1595. Hardback, xliv + 1161 pages. Rupture factor: not critical.

Reporting Patent Decisions

Our courts have, by force of tradition, found it habitually convenient to follow their previous decisions rendered on similar grounds. Despite the acquisitions of colour-matching, the practice had made the system predictable, and to an extent, efficient. As a system based on the doctrine of precedent, there is a great degree of trust imposed on reporting decisions of courts. There is a fairly trustworthy means of reporting decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court in place now. The decisions of the lower courts, being devoid of any binding effect, were never meant to make it to the reports.

Decisions concerning patents get reported when disputes are brought before the High Courts or the Supreme Court. The patent decision rendered by a Controller has a very rare chance of being reported. Out of the nearly 8000 pharmaceutical applications pending before the Patent Office, more than 150 opposition proceedings have been launched. Of the opposition decisions rendered by the Patent Office, only a few have been reported – Patent and Trademark Cases, a subscription journal has reported the decision on Wockhardt’s Nadoxin and Pharmabiz reporting the decision on Novartis’ Gleevac. You will find a summary report on some opposition proceedings here and here.

Reporting decisions of the Controller will have its own set of problems. First, these decisions can at best have persuasive effect offering guidance and cannot have any binding effect. Hence the primary incentive for reporting them is simply not there. Secondly, the humungous number of patent decisions (of rejection and grant of applications) rendered by Patent Offices the world over make it next to impossible to report them all.

Yet we find decisions of first instance being reported in an ingenious way. It has been the practice in the European Patent Office to include the decision of the first instance (Opposition Board) in its appellate decision. This form of indirect reporting serves the vital need of those who need to refer to the decision of the first instance for additional details and to get the bigger picture where needed. It will indeed be desirable for the development of patent law in this country, if the Appellate Board and the High Courts make it a point to include the decision at the first instance in their decisions.

Is the Opponent a Party to the Pre-grant Opposition Proceedings

I have consistently canvassed a proposition, much to the chagrin of legal puritans, that an opponent in a pre-grant opposition is not a party to the proceeding. In strict legalese it means that a pre-grant opposition proceeding before the Controller is not a proceeding inter partes. Though a bare reading of section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 gives an impression that pre-grant opposition proceeding is between the applicant and the opponent, the details in the Act and the Rules point to the contrary. For starters, pre-grant opposition proceedings are entertained in the application stage where third parties cannot, and need not, be regarded as essential parties to the proceeding. For the reasons stated below, pre-grant opposition procedure can at best be regarded as a procedure to take into account the case presented by an opponent who is not a party to the proceeding and nothing more.

Firstly, a pre-grant opposition, though initiated by a third party, will be regarded as an extension of the application procedure as the opposition takes place before the grant of the application. For this reason, pre-grant opposition will be treated as a proceeding involving the Controller and the applicant. The role of the opponent is merely to supply information to the Controller. In fact, the power of the Controller to revoke and amend the patent is conferred under section 15 which may be exercised even without a pre-grant opposition. In other words, the outcome of the application can be the same even without an opposition.

Secondly, a brief comparison between the procedures of pre-grant and pos-grant opposition gives an unmistakable impression the pre-grant opposition proceedings are not intended to be a proceeding between parties. Unlike post-grant opposition where an opponent becomes a party by filing his notice of opposition in Form 7, pre-grant opposition requires only a written representation and as such there is no procedure by which the opponent can officially enter into the proceedings. In a country where things become 'official' on the payment of fees to the Government, the status of an opponent remains obscure as there is no fee for filing a pre-grant opposition. Furthermore, there is no specific provision similar to rule 63 by which an opponent can be eligible for costs of opposition.

Thirdly, the mere fact that a representation is made by the opponent in pre-grant opposition will not oblige the Controller to act upon it. The opposition will be entertained only 'if the Controller is of the opinion that application for patent shall be refused or the complete specification requires amendment'. The applicant will be informed about the opposition only if the Controller, in his opinion, is satisfied about the merits of the opposition.

Fourthly, the opponent will not be entitled to know the defence of the applicant in pre-grant proceedings. Unlike the procedure for post-grant opposition, the Act and the Rules do not detail the manner in which an opponent can get information about the applicant's defence.

Finally, as argued earlier, though an applicant can prefer an appeal from the order of the Controller in pre-grant opposition proceedings, there is no corresponding right of appeal for the opponent.