Legal News Updates

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

Updates: 03rd November to 22nd November 2014.

In an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court, Micromax has to pay a royalty that amounts up to 1% of the selling price of its devices to Ericsson. Ericsson had alleged that Micromax had refused to enter into a licensing agreement covering its patented innovations across several wireless technology standards such as GSM, EDGE and third generation (3G). The patents in question are a part of what are called “standards-essential” patents and holders are expected to license them on Free Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Micromax was said to have keen on negotiating a FRAND license with Ericsson but the companies could not come to a suitable conclusion.

The E-Committee of the Supreme Court has rejected the Government’s proposal to record the Court proceedings in a subordinate court.  The E-Committee rejected the proposal saying it was not acceptable at present. The proposal to record court proceedings was made by the government after an advisory council meeting of the Law Ministry held in August this year. This was as a part of the E-court project under which the government had sought to initiate recording of the proceedings in lower courts and subsequently bring the High Courts and the Supreme Court under its ambit.

The Supreme Court is facing an interesting case of murder where the accused was tried as an adult though the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence.  Since, the accused was a juvenile when the offence was committed, the criminal trial stands vitiated and a fresh trial will have to be held before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).  The Court has sought the assistance of the Attorney General to resolve the issue.

In a letter to the High Courts, Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu has asked for the judgments delivered by the Judges of the High Courts, in order to “ascertain quantitative as well as qualitative disposal of cases”. So far Reported Judgments have been accepted as one of the parameters for ascertaining “qualitative disposal”. Now as per this letter, the details of all judgments will have to be provided. The letter also demands resumes of the Chief Justices and the Judges in a specified format. It also demands details of total and reported judgments.

In Criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, the Petitioner was seeking criminal prosecution of a Judge in respect of acts discharged during judicial functions. It was held no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him, when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. The Court also held that no Judge can be prosecuted without a prior sanction, whether the alleged offence is punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law.

The Central Information Commission has held that refusing to give details of foreign tours by ministers and officers, and staff particulars of AG without hearing the appellant was wrong.  It set aside the order of First Appellate Authority of Department of Legal Affairs as it was given without hearing the appellant.  CIC also recommended action against the officer for this ‘illegal’ order.

The Bar Council of India has recently notified the Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules of 2014. Under these rules, a lawyer must practice for two years in a trial court and three in a high court before being allowed to practice before the apex court. The new rules also mandate the renewal of licenses every five years, in an attempt to “weed out” those lawyers who are no longer practicing.

In accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, the Ministry of Law and Justice has decided on the formation of a separate High Court for Andhra Pradesh. According to section 30 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution of India and other provisions of the Act.

The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) is all set to slash the prices of popular medicines for stress, hypertension, HIV, pain and pneumonia. The move seeks to cover as many as 100 new drugs and would apply to drugs of varying strengths. This is the second time that NPPA has proposed regulating the price of drugs outside the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), 2011. The announcement by NPPA comes in light of its findings that certain “anomalies or discrepancies” exist in the description/specification of drugs in NLEM.

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

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Anjana Srinivasan, (2nd 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.

Read More

Effect of TRIPS on Public Health

Author: Sutapa Jana , 3rd Year student of RGSOIPL, IIT-Kharagpur.

       

Health is one of the basic fundamental needs of all human beings. Health policies encompass a number of elements, from prevention to cure and access to drugs.[1] Access is now defined by both availability and affordability which clearly establishes the economic link between this “access” and poverty.

The scenario of HIV/AIDS in the African continent clearly illustrates this relationship. The epidemic which is going on ruining countries has brought in limelight the utterly inhuman face of the Multi National Companies (MNCs), as they continued to sell the drugs to treat HIV-AIDS at 20-50 times their actual cost by seeking shelter under laws mandated by the TRIPS agreement. A kind of relief was given to those deprived people when the Indian companies like Cipla offered these drugs at very low prices by March 2001.

This has been the spark for an upsurge in the public opinion against the ruthless practices of MNCs, questioning the rationale of TRIPS, particularly in public health. These developments ultimately resulted in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (November 2001) seeking to limit, to some extent, the damage done by the TRIPS agreement and its underlying philosophy.[2]

The Doha Declaration does not open new avenues within TRIPS but confirms the legitimacy of measures seeking to use to the largest extent possible the in-built flexibility found in TRIPS. This emphasizes that the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health and reaffirms the rights of Members to fully use the flexibilities available in the TRIPS Agreement for this purpose. The TRIPS Agreement has to be interpreted in a manner which is supportive to safeguard the public health of Member countries and to promote access to medicines to all ("interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all" ). In other words, the declaration does not open new avenues within TRIPS but confirms the legitimacy of measures seeking to use to the largest extent possible the in-built flexibility found in TRIPS.

It also clarified the provisions for the flexibilities granted under TRIPS, i.e. Compulsory licensing. Compulsory licensing has long been used as a tool to regulate the exclusive rights conferred by patents. In the case of health, the rationale is to make sure that the existence of a patent does not create a situation where a protected medicine is not available to the public because of non-health related factors. The Patents Act, 1970 provided an elaborate regime that included both compulsory licenses and licenses of right. The TRIPS Agreement has not explicitly mentioned the word compulsory licensing but that does not mean it has done away with the notion of compulsory licenses but provides a more restrictive framework than the current regime in force in India. It explained that each member has the right to grant compulsory licenses and has the discretion to determine the grounds upon which such licenses are to be given. The recognition in the Doha Declaration that TRIPS member-states can use the flexibility provided in the agreement and can, thus be understood in the context of a generally increasingly restrictive international patent regime. It was also mentioned that compulsory licenses can be issued for importation as well as for domestic production.

In regard to exhaustion of IPRs, the Declaration has clearly mentioned that each Member is free to establish its own regime without challenge if they are subject to provisions of TRIPS, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of nationality of the right holder. In the declaration it was reaffirmed that the developed countries are committed to the provisions of providing incentives to their enterprises and institutions to promote technology transfer to LDCs under Article 66.2 of TRIPS.

The declaration has been hailed as a giant leap in the direction for making the TRIPS Agreement more responsive to the needs of developing countries and more specifically to the individuals who are unable to afford the cost of patented drugs. In fact, it tries to address a number of important issues related to the implementation of medical patents. However, it fails to take up the much more fundamental questions of the scope of patentability and the duration of patents in the health sector. The Doha Declaration acts an important instrument in India for two main reasons. Firstly, at a political level, India was among the most vocal and one of the leading developing countries at the ministerial conference in putting forward developing Countries' interests. Secondly, the declaration was adopted while the joint committee of Parliament was finalizing its report.

The major goals identified in this millennium which are of immense importance include reducing poverty and hunger, improving health and education and ensuring environmental sustainability. There has been arguments in favor as well as  against the implementation of  IPR regime. Some strongly recommend the implementation of IPRs will reduce the poverty by stimulating economic growth. As protection for new innovation increases this will in turn increase the production calling for both domestic and foreign investment which will ultimately lead to availability of medicines to combat diseases. People who vehemently oppose this argue that it stimulates innovation to only a limited extent, on the other hand developed countries use it as a tool to ouster the domestic competitors from the market and encourage importing of medicines instead of manufacturing which in turn increases the price of essential drugs. 

Hence, even if those drugs are available they are beyond the reach of the destitute.  IP rights are not conferred to only attain profits but also to provide affordable health care for long term. Such rights must therefore be closely monitored to ensure that they do actually promote healthcare objectives and, above all, should not act as barrier in promoting access to healthcare.

---

[1] Prachi Pallavi; Patent Regime and Right to Health: National and International Perspective; : http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/pg.htm

[2] Prachi Pallavi; Patent Regime and Right to Health: National and International Perspective; http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/pg.htm

Read More