Patent office rejects Roche claim on eye drug

Swiss drug multinational Roche AG suffered yet another setback in its ongoing patent fights in India after the Chennai patent office rejected its claim over Valcyte (valganciclovir).

The decision, which came on April 30, marks an end to one of the toughest patent battles between Roche, Indian generic drug makers and groups of patients.

Valganciclovir is an important drug for the treatment of severe eye infection that people living with HIV (the AIDS virus) are susceptible to. It is also used in post-operative treatment for patients who have received an organ transplant.

Valcyte is priced at Rs 1,040 for each 450 mg tablet, while generic equivalents are available at a fourth of its cost. The Chennai office rejected the patent claim primarily on the grounds that valganciclovir lacked the novelty that merits protection.

Anand Grover, Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, who represented the patient groups in the litigation, welcomed the decision. “This underscores the importance of oppositions in ensuring that the Patent Office interprets the patentability criteria strictly, to prevent new forms of old drugs from being patented. This decision will have implications for patients not only in India but also in other developing countries,” he said.

Roche is entitled to now approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board for a review of the patent office decision.

It had initial success with Valcyte when the Chennai office granted a patent to the medicine in 2007. Since the decision was taken without hearing a pre-grant opposition filed by some patient groups, it was challenged in the High Court there.

The court set aside the order and asked the patent office to hear the pre-grant opposition, which was rejected by the latter. The matter came before the Supreme Court that directed the patent office to club all opposition — by patient groups, post-grant opposition from generic companies — and give its verdict.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=393974

Patent Theft as a Business Strategy

America's largest big tech corporations are now using a business technique called "efficient infringement," which means that they calculate the benefits of stealing someone else's patented technology against the possibility of getting caught, tried in court and being forced to pay damages and penalties. If the benefits exceed the costs, they steal.

What makes patent theft so attractive is that infringement is not a criminal act and those found guilty face no jail time. Paying up is the worst that can happen to the infringer.

The most aggressive users of this business model are fifteen of America's largest big tech corporations. patent owners have sued these fifteen corporations 740 times for infringement and have won $4 billion in damages. Not surprisingly, these big tech corporations' political goal is to change the law so patent theft is more difficult to prove, less costly when caught, and willful infringement virtually impossible to prove.

The principal victims of these big corporations' "efficient infringement" approach are independent inventors, small businesses and universities - the source of most breakthrough innovations and the creators of two-thirds of all new jobs.

This "steal-what-you-want" approach to business is spreading throughout our economy. Now, corporate behemoths in the financial services industry are using the technique and ganging up on small patent holders. Nowhere is this more evident than the case of DataTreasury Corporation, a tiny Texas company locked in battle with some of the biggest banks in the world.

As I have written before, DataTreasury's founder invented a revolutionary check-processing system in the mid-1990s and tried to market it to high-level executives at Chase Manhattan Bank (now known as JPMorgan Chase). Instead of partnering with DataTreasury, those bankers are accused of walking off with the idea and using it to start a pair of highly successful check-processing companies of their own -- companies which are now owned by the biggest banks in the nation.

According to industry sources, the banking industry is now making $2-4 billion annually because of DataTreasury's patented check-processing technology. DataTreasury has been forced to go to court to protect its property rights, and over the years has reached settlements with JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, HSBC, and scores of other large banks.

But Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and about a dozen other banks refuse to deal with the little company. Instead of paying up, those remaining banks have played dirty. In 2007, Washington lobbyists working for the banking industry had an amendment inserted into a pending patent-reform bill that would have granted legal immunity to all of DataTreasury's defendants. The amendment died on the floor of the U.S. Senate after the press exposed the story.

As you read this, DataTreasury is in the middle of a trial with Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank, the country's fifth-largest financial institution.

Last week, the federal judge overseeing the case dropped a bombshell. He ruled that DataTreasury had succeeded in arguing that U.S. Bank may have conspired with the nation's other top banks to infringe the small company's patents. That's a very serious charge. It helps open the door to more than $600 million in damages against U.S. Bank, and it raises questions about whether Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and the other banks going to trial with DataTreasury later this year, may have also taken part in the same conspiracy.

Whether U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and a dozen other banks are guilty of infringing DataTreasury's patent is a matter for a jury to decide. However, if the jury does conclude that they were part of a conspiracy to steal the little company's idea, I hope that the judge and jury will impose a judgment that is big enough to scare corporate CEOs everywhere. If money is the only penalty for infringement, then a staggeringly large award is the only way to send a message to corporate America that they should avoid any conspiracy to infringe someone's patents as though it were the Bubonic Plague.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-choate/patent-theft-as-a-busines_b_508780.html

USTR Report pointing 11 countries on its Priority Watch List

The office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has sent Congress its annual report on the adequacy and effectiveness of U.S. trading partners' protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), which shows some progress but also names a number of countries where it feels IPR protection is falling short of what needs to be done.

The report places considerable emphasis on what it says are "the prominence of IPR concerns with respect to China."

USTR Ron Kirk said: "We are seriously concerned about China's implementation of 'indigenous innovation' policies that may unduly disadvantage U.S. IPR holders. Procurement preferences and other measures favoring 'indigenous innovation' could severely restrict market access for American technology and products." He added that intellectual property theft in overseas markets is an export killer for American businesses and a job killer for American workers here at home."

U.S. textile and apparel makers have long been victims of both imports and exports from China and other countries that they say violate their intellectual property rights.

After reviewing actions by 77 countries, the USTR placed 11 countries on its Priority Watch List of counties that it feels do not provide adequate levels of IPR protection. Those countries include China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand and Venezuela.

Twenty-nine countries are on a lower priority list; and the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were removed from the Priority Watch List.

Kirk said he would continue to work with the governments of the listed countries in an effort to resolve problems.



http://www.textileworld.com/Articles/2010/May/Washington_Outlook_Both_Problems_And_Progress_Seen_In_Intellectual_Property_Rights_Protection.html

Patent A Strategic Weapon in Smartphone Industry

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it." Those words, spoken by Apple CEO Steve Jobs in early March, are only the latest in a series of verbal and legal skirmishes that are developing in the smartphone industry. Jobs' comments, and a lawsuit filed by Apple, were directed at Taiwan-based HTC, a leading distributor of phones powered by Google's Android operating system. In a March 17 statement, HTC CEO Peter Chou said his company "disagrees with Apple's actions and will fully defend itself."

In February Motorola sued Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry, over patent infringements in wireless technology. And Finland-based Nokia , which boasts one of the broadest patent portfolios in the industry, sued Apple late last year over infringements on patents for its Global System for Mobile Communications, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System and wireless local area network standards--only to be hit in December by a countersuit over patent infringement.

The flurry of patent battles playing out in U.S. federal courts and in front of the International Trade Commission--an independent government agency that determines import damages from unfair trade practices and copyright, patent and trademark infringement--is the mark of a young industry with billions of dollars at stake. Companies like Apple are looking to solidify their positions as a front runner and are willing to use their intellectual property as a weapon in their arsenal.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/05/defending-a-patent-risks-entrepreneurs-law-taxation-wharton.html?boxes=Homepagechannels

Counterfeit goods growing problem in India: USTR

Joe C Mathew / New Delhi

US watchdog lauds India’s IPR efforts, but picks holes in legal framework.

Counterfeit goods and pirated software and optical media continue to thrive in India. A report by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has named Nehru Place and Palika Bazaar in New Delhi, Richie Street and Burma Bazaar in Chennai, Manish Market, Heera Panna, Lamington Road and Fort District in Mumbai, and Chandni Chowk in Kolkata as markets that need to be watched out for this high-volume trade.

India, in fact, continues to be on the “priority watch list” of the USTR’s “Special 301” report, despite a detailed submission of the intellectual property rights (IPR) compliance measures initiated by it in 2009.

The “Special 301” report is an annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement. Priority watch list is a list of countries whose IPR compliance is not satisfactory from the US point of view.

The report alleged that manufacturing and distribution of pharmaceutical products bearing counterfeit trademarks was a growing problem in India as well as Brazil, China, Indonesia and Russia.

The report, released on April 30, termed last year’s progress made by India on IPR enforcement front as “incremental”, though it welcomed the country’s efforts to amend trademark laws to facilitate its accession to the Madrid Protocol — an international treaty on registration and recognition of trade marks. However, it expressed concerns over “India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement”.

“Piracy and counterfeiting, including counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem. Amendments are needed to bring India’s copyright law in line with international standards, including by implementing the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties. Additionally, a law designed to address unauthorised manufacturing and distribution of optical discs remains in a draft form and should be enacted in the near term,” the report said.

The United States continued to point fingers at India for its patent laws and said a current provision in law (probably Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act) appeared to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery.

The Section 3(d) of Indian Patent Act prevents patenting of mere incremental innovations.

The report wanted India to “improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences and to change the perception that IPR offenses were low priority crimes”.

This is the first time that USTR had given an opportunity to India to provide its views on IPR enforcement before finalising the Special 301 Report.

The Special 301 Report categorises countries under three separate heads — watchlist, priority watchlist and notorious — depending on how USTR rates the IP enforcement systems of its trading partner. India and 10 others — Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand and Venezuela — are under the priority watch list for 2010.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/counterfeit-goods-growing-problem-in-india-ustr/393555/

To stop patent fights, India gives US, UK access to database

Vineeta Pandey / DNA

New Delhi: Having burnt its fingers on long and expensive litigations to prevent foreign companies from patenting neem and turmeric,the Indian government has developed a unique process to save its AYUSH (ayurveda, yoga, unani, siddha and homeopathy) knowledge.

The health ministry has formally given US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) and UK Trademark & Patent Office (UKPTO) access to its Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) to cross-check whether it already exists with India whenever any patent is filed.

This means that whenever a patent is filed in these offices, a quick look at the Indian digital library would inform patent offices whether India already possesses this knowledge or not.

Ministry officials said the TKDL Access Agreement has in-built safeguards to protect India’s interest against any possible misuse. Under the pact, the patent examiners at International Patent Offices (IPO) can utilise the TKDL for patent search and examination purposes only and cannot reveal the content to third party unless it is necessary for citation purposes.

The ministry claims that through TKDL India is now capable of protecting about two lakh medical formulations similar to those of neem and turmeric.

There were similar moves to seek patent on yoga as well. On an average, it takes five to seven years for opposing a granted patent at international level with the litigation costs coming to Rs1-3 crore. Last year a similar TKDL Access Agreement was signed with the European Patent Office, making TKDL database available to their patent examiners.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_to-stop-patent-fights-india-gives-us-uk-access-to-database_1376838

Patent filing abuse has gone completely out of control?

Infosys stood by example in recession by up keeping their offer letters, now they are standing as a big example on heights of patenting or abusing patents by applying for patent on Framework for Supporting Transition of One or More Applications of an Organization which is on off shoring U.S. Jobs, in which Infosys explains 'relates generally to the field of outsourcing or off shoring of one or more applications of an organization.' Prior to this invention, Infosys says it was necessary for a vendor organization to incur hefty visa and travel costs to allow a 'significant number' of employees from its offshore location to 'visit the client's location to interact with the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)' before returning 'to the offshore location to transfer the knowledge to the offshore team.