This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Background Amgen produces and markets apremilast, a medication for the treatment of certain types of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, under the brand name Otezla. Sandoz submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to market a generic version of apremilast. Holding(s) No.
This has led to the introduction of intellectual property rights which are a set of exclusionary rights as it excludes the world from enjoying a set of rights arising out an invention or creation, except the inventor or creator. These laws establish the backbone of safeguarding all the rights accrued to various kinds of intellectual property.
While the goal of IPR law is to preserve inventors’ rights over their creations, the goal of competition law is to maintain effective market competition by prohibiting anti-competitive acts and the misuse of dominant positions. IPR law’s goal has been changed from defending individual inventors to promoting new ideas. [2]
In 2002, in light of two progressive Supreme Court pronouncements ( Mohini Jain v. As the single judge eloquently noted in the DU photocopy case, the purpose of copyright is to increase the: “harvest of knowledge, motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public.” State of Karnataka and Ors.
Background Amgen produces and markets apremilast, a medication for the treatment of certain types of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, under the brand name Otezla. Sandoz submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to market a generic version of apremilast. Holding(s) No.
Taking guidance from earlier case law ( Ashoka Marketing Ltd. But then Section 62 clarifies that the provisions of the Act (which was passed in 2002) are to be seen in addition to and not in derogation of the other laws. However, what about when both the laws are special, like in the present case? PNB , Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd.
Intellectual property rights provide a negative right in other words a monopoly right to the creator or Inventor over their creation or Invention. Businesses can use this intangible right to gain a competitive edge in the market. The goal of competition law is to ensure fair functioning of the market. [1]
While one aims to regulate and ensure that markets operate efficiently in a fair and competitive manner, the other aims to grant a certain level of protection which may be considered to have monopolistic tendencies. One pertains to granting exclusive rights to “authors and inventors” to encourage creativity.
Amgen markets apremilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 (“PDE4”) inhibitor, which is used for treating psoriasis and related conditions, under the brand name Otezla® which is covered by three patents, U.S. Sandoz submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval market a generic version of apremilast.
Intellectual property rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPR’) are the legal rights granted to the inventor or creator to safeguard his or her invention or production for a certain period of time. These legal rights grant the inventor, creator, or assignee the only right to fully exploit his invention/creation for a given period.
Initially, laws relating to patents in India did not cover inventions related to biotechnology until an amendment in 2002 acknowledged biotechnological, biochemical and microbiological processes as having the potential to be patented. The commercialization of biotechnological innovations has become a major driver of patent activity.
Trade show booths often include demonstration systems, brochures, and marketing presentations that are only available for the two or three days of the show. Conference presentations, presentation slides, and posters can all be prior art, whether they come from an inventor or someone else, and can prevent you from patenting your inventions.
It means the products created by the use of the human mind as well as some resultant inventions, literary works, original designs, and the identities of various trademarks or logos that serve as brands in the market. These creative concepts are shielded by legal means called patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
Other than Article 31, Article 7 speaks on how a balance is to be sought, between the individual benefits of the inventor and the needs of the users of that technological knowledge, the same idea being iterated under Section 83 of the Indian Patents Act. Pertinent Aspects of CL Provisions.
2002)] What the saying really means is that a patent applicant can give a word, term, or phrase its own definition, and that definition should be applied to that application or later patent. Vitronics Corp. CCS Fitness, Inc. Brunswick Corp., 3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
Here Under Armour filed an application for injunction against the Defendants from selling, manufacturing, marketing and dealing in any manner with the wordmark AERO ARMOUR and / or AERO ARMR. The Rules supersede the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004, and have been created supplementing the 2023 amendment to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content