News Updates

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

15 December 2014

The Bombay High Court refused to entertain a Writ filed by an advocate challenging the imposition of service tax on advocates. So the business clients of individual lawyers and law firms will continue to pay service tax as mandated by the Finance Act.

16 December 2014

In the case of Italian Marines who are accused of killing two Indian fishermen, the Supreme Court denied the plea of one Italian Marine to extend the stay in Italy on health grounds and the plea of the other Marine to travel to Italy for Christmas. The Court held that they want the system to work and that the relief cannot be granted even though the trial has not commenced. Therefore, the accused must come to India and the charge-sheet be filed.

17 December 2014

The Delhi High Court which had earlier passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Chinese manufacturer, Xiaomi, allowed the company to sell and import handsets which have chipsets of Qualcomm Inc., till 5 February 2015. Xiaomi argued that Erricsson had suppressed the facts to obtain an injunction. Qualcomm has a license from Erricsson and therefore the license does not make Xiaomi an infringer of Ericsson’s patent rights.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) on 17 December ordered that information relating to the death of the former Chief Justice of India J S Verma be disclosed to RTI activist Mr. S C Agrawal. The Commissioner, M Sridhar Acharyulu said, “Such letters (documents) from eminent citizens from all walks of life on death of a devoted and honest jurist who spent his post-retirement life in a rented house is indeed a matter of serious concern”.

18 December 2014

The Supreme Court bench has extended the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J. Jayalalthaa’s bail by 4 months and directed the Karnataka High Court to constitute a special bench to hear her appeal expeditiously and decide it within 3 months, till 18 April 2015. The former CM challenged her conviction in Karnataka High Court in a ‘Disproportionate Assets Case’ after being found guilty.

19 December 2014

Three judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in relation to the Coal Ordinance. The deadline to pay the penalty is 31 December which was marked from 24 September judgment in which the 214 of the 218 coal blocks allocations was quashed.

22 December 2014

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions which were filed praying for protection as a married couple as they had tied the knot after the girls got their religion converted from Hindu to Islam and then performed Nikah. The court observed that “Conversion to another religion basically requires change of faith and belief of personal relations of a major individual of sound mind by his free will, with what he/she regards as cosmos, his/her Make or Creator, which he/she believes, regulates the existence of insentient beings and the forces of Universe.”

24 December 2014

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has released the 1^st draft on the National IPR Policy submitted by the ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice Prabha Sridevan. The draft policy can be accessed here.

26 December 2014

The Delhi High Court issued a notice to RBI on the decision to impose a limit of five transactions per month from the customers’ own bank ATM and charging Rs. 20/- per transaction beyond it. RBI had also imposed a limit of three transactions per month from ATMs of other banks, located in the six metro centres- Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. During the hearing, the court said, “You (banks) are unnecessary taxing your account holders.” The response has been sought by 18 February 2015.

The Delhi High Court distinguished between Uber and Ola cabs and refused to give a similar order in favor or Uber. Ola was given relief as they are only a technology platform and not a radio taxi operator. The court observed that ‘You (Uber) take money from customers and give it to drivers. So you are providing the service.’ By the virtue of December 8 Government Order, Uber had been effectively banned in India.

We hope that this summarizes the News from 15th to 27th December . Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Wishing you all a very delightful and successful New Year. 

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

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