Legal Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

Updates: 2nd November to 8th November 2014.

2^nd November:

Delhi Police has approached the Supreme Court with the plea to modify the December 2013 order in which the Apex Court had said, “The men in uniform; operational agencies which require unhindered access to roads for performance of their duty; those engaged in emergency duties such as ambulance services, fire services, emergency maintenance etc.; and, police vehicles used as escorts or pilots or for law and order duties shall not be entitled to have red light but lights of other colours, eg, blue, white, multi-coloured etc.” The Supreme Court had ordered on 2^nd November that only “high dignitaries” can use the red beacon, and only when on duty.

3^rd November:

The CIC, Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu, held on 3rd November 2014 that ‘charge-sheet’ has to be disclosed after separating non-disclosable portions, if any, as per restrictions prescribed under RTI Act. The CIC was hearing an appeal by Ms. Usha Kanth Asiwal who sought to know of complaint (charge-sheet) made to Anti Corruption Bureau on 25-04-2001 and  inquiry leading to registration of case against 13 persons under Prevention of Corruption Act, which is now under prosecution in Tis Hazari Courts.

Roche and Cipla have failed to reach an agreement over the Erlotinib patent dispute. At the instance of Delhi High Court, in around April this year, Roche and Cipla got engage in mediation. The mediator submitted the failure report after discussions between the two parties failed to fructify. It was highly suspected that any compromise may happen considering the nature of the dispute and patent at stake. The proceeding will now resume in Delhi High Court.

Cipla has brazenly launched a cheaper generic version of Novartis’ Indacetorol (a drug used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Cipla has further petitioned to the DIPP to revoke to revoke Novartis’ patents in public interest under S.66 of the Indian patent act. This would be the first time when a plea for revocation of patent will be entertained solely on the ground of public interest.  Cipla has taken two grounds for revocation that it is very costly and that it is not sufficiently produced in India, thus it is pre-judicial to the public.

4^th November:

The decision rendered by a division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Pradeep Nadrajog in a rape case has been a highlight this week in all forms of media. The accused Achey Lal was acquitted of the offences of murder and rape in view that the prosecution was not able to prove its case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused has committed the offence so charged against him. The controversy that arouse is mostly because the judgment spoke of the deceased aged 65-70 is beyond the age of menopause and any sexual intercourse, which is forceful and not forcible, is not rape.

It has recently come to the notice of the Indian Government that a German company is using the term ‘khadi’ in its trademark. Khadi being a popular symbol in     India, mostly because of Gandhian Movement and has established itself as Swaraj and Self-sufficiency during Indian Freedom Fight. The German company, ‘Khadi Naturprodukte’ is in the business of selling various Indian-origin products such as shampoos, soaps and oils in Europe. Incidentally, these are products which Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), an arm of the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), sells in addition to fabric. This will open a new gate for the Government of India to protect its IP across the seas. It is also note-worthy that a GI application on Khadi is also on the way.

5^th November:

Release of ‘Rang rasiya’, a movie directed by Ketan Mehta claimed to be based on the life of renowned painter Raja Ravi Varma has been stayed by the Mavelikkara munsiff court in Alapuzha district in Kerala. She had stated that the film is depicting a false image of the artist and she called the movie a ‘direct assault’ on Indian culture and womanhood. She also alleged the violation of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Justice D. Hariparanthaman of the Madras High Court has ruled that a married daughter of a deceased government employee is eligible for appointment under compassionate grounds. The Court ruled, “There cannot be any discrimination between a married son and a married daughter. Making discrimination between a son and a daughter on the ground of marriage is arbitrary and violative of fundamental right to equality.”

The Economic Times reports that Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has set up a think tank to advise the Government on a gamut of issues related to patents and to also draft a national IPR policy. The think-tank is a six member panel headed by Justice Prabha Sridevan, a former judge (Madras High Court) and former chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). This is a follow up step of  bilateral US-India Trade Policy Forum announced by Narendra Modi and Barack Obama.

7^th November:

The Supreme Court has demanded details from the Central Government with respect to individuals residing in Government accommodations. It urged the Government to render information regarding the categories of bungalows existing in Delhi, their allotment under discretionary and people who have been overstaying in the same. On vacation of government bungalows by judges of the apex court and HCs, the bench said, “Judges of any forum shall vacate the official residence within a period of one month from the date of superannuation/retirement. However, after recording sufficient reason(s), the time may be extended by another month.”

The SC ruled that the judiciary cannot direct the government to conduct census ina particular manner and that would amount to ‘colossal transgression’ of the power of judicial review, thus overruling the Madras HC judgment in which Hon’ble HC had directed the central govt to conduct  caste based census.  Three judge bench categorically ruled that issuing a mandamus directing the State to conduct census in a particular manner would be in excess of its power of judicial re view. The Hon’ble SC held that “The order is exceptionally cryptical. That apart, it is legally wholly unsustainable.  The High Court, to say the least, had no justification to pave such a path and we have no hesitation in treating the said path as a colossal transgression of power of judicial review, and that makes the order sensitively susceptible.”

The European Patent Office (EPO) announced on its website today that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Intellectual Property Office of India (IPO India) on co-operation on patents to promote innovation in India and the European Union. The MoU calls for bilateral co-operation between EPO & IPO and it seeks to establish a framework for structured work relations between both the offices for a minimum of four years.

The Delhi High Court in Sukesh Behl v. Koninklijke Phillips Electronics (Division Bench. Maj. Behl Vs Philips-DB1-DHC 7.11.2014) passed a significant decision with regard to Section 8 of the Patent Act 1970. It ruled that a patentee’s non compliance with Section 8 of the Patent Act will not lead to an automatic revocation of its patent under Section 64(1)(m). As per the decision, it is necessary to check whether the omission to disclose information under Section 8 was deliberate/intentional or whether it was a mere clerical/bona fide error.

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Manish Kumar, (3rd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.