scholarly journals बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार औषधी आणि कृषी

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAKSHIT MADAN BAGDE

Founded on January 1, 1995, India has signed and ratified the Agreement. The agreement recognizes a free economy and includes intellectual property rights as part of it. After independence, India enacted the Indian Patent Act in 1970 through the Tekchand Committee in 1948, the Iyengar Committee in 1957, and the Joint Parliamentary Committee in 1965 and 1967. New patent law was enacted in 2005 to amend the 1970 law, which has been in force since May 5, 2006.

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Celia Castro ◽  
Maria Beatriz Amorim Bohrer

TRIPS as it stands is against the interests of developing countries, and needsreform. In developing their own patent law, developing countries need to recognizethat there is now near consensus among informed observers that patentlaw and practice have, in some cases, overshot, and need to be reformed. Thatis the burden of the recent NAS/NRC report on “A Patent System for the 21stCentury.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
putri indah sari

The problems in this research are: (1) Is the patent in production can be provided to the workers / employees as a inventor? (2) How will the moral rights attached to the inventor to patent the intellectual work produced during the production process? This research uses normative juridical approach. Source of data derived from secondary data that primary legal materials, secondary, and tertiary. The results showed that patents in the production process is not given to the discoverer of workers / employees. The government needs to dissemination of the patents and other intellectual property rights so that a producer of intellectual work so that they know that the law protects what they produce. Governments also need to revise the provisions of Article 12 paragraph (1) Patent Law, where the rights of patent holders fixed on the inventor.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-65
Author(s):  
Trias Palupi Kurnianingrum

Patent as a branch of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) serves to protect inventions on the field of technology, one of them being medicine. The rise on the number of cases on the theft of genetic resources and traditional knowledge on the field of medicine for commercialization purposes shows that the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge is still not optimal. This article is the result of a normative juridical research which is supported by an empirical data, examines the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge and the implementation of Article 26 of Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents (Patent Law year 2016). In the research results, it was mentioned that even though the TRIPs Agreement did not accommodate the traditional knowledge, the presence of Patent Law year 2016 complemented the Indonesian government's efforts to save the knowledge of traditional medicines from biopiracy and misappropriation. It is necessary to regulate the disclosure obligation in TRIPs agreement and further mechanism regarding benefit sharing and granting access to traditional medicines knowledge. AbstrakPaten merupakan salah satu cabang Hak Kekayaan Intelektual yang berfungsi untuk melindungi invensi di bidang teknologi, salah satunya obat-obatan. Maraknya kasus pencurian sumber daya genetik dan pengetahuan tradisional di bidang obat-obatan untuk tujuan komersialisasi menunjukkan bahwa pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional masih belum maksimal. Artikel ini merupakan hasil penelitian yuridis normatif yang didukung dengan data empiris, membahas mengenai pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional dan implementasi Pasal 26 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten (UU Paten 2016). Di dalam hasil penelitian, disebutkan meskipun Perjanjian Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) belum mengakomodasi pengetahuan tradisional namun hadirnya UU Paten 2016 melengkapi usaha pemerintah Indonesia dalam menyelamatkan pengetahuan obat tradisional dari biopiracy dan misappropriation. Perlu pengaturan kewajiban disclosure di dalam Perjanjian TRIPs dan mekanisme lebih lanjut mengenai benefit sharing dan pemberian akses atas pengetahuan obat tradisional.


LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 684-694
Author(s):  
Krishnamani Jayaraman

In its recent judgment in the Sisvel v. Xiaomi case, the Court of Appeal of the Hague has demonstrated how European national legal systems and judiciary therein strive to uphold legitimacy of the intellectual property system. Involving dimensions of both substantive patent law and competition law, the case emphasized proportionality etched in European Union law to determine the legitimate cohesive balance for stakeholder economic interests in the protection, enforcement and use of intellectual property rights. This case note documents the salient features of the judgment and further comments on striking legal concepts that marked the case.


Author(s):  
Mark Lemley

A number of doctrines in modern copyright and patent law attempt to strikesome balance between the rights of original developers and the rights ofsubsequent improvers. Both patents and copyrights are limited in durationand in scope. Each of these limitations provides some freedom of action tosubsequent improvers. Improvers are free to use material that is in thepublic domain because the copyright or patent has expired. They are free toskirt the edges of existing intellectual property rights, for example bytaking the ideas but not the expression from a copyrighted work or"designing around" the claims of a patent. However, improvers cannot alwaysavoid the intellectual property rights of the basic work on which they wishto improve. Some improvements fall within the scope of the preexistingintellectual property right, either because of an expansive definition ofthat right or because economic or technical necessity requires that theimprover hew closely to the work of the original creator in some basicrespect. Here, the improver is at the mercy of the original intellectualproperty owner, unless there is some separate right that expressly allowscopying for the sake of improvement.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeni susanti

The basis of patent law itself is very complete explained in the patent law regulation number 14 of 2001. In the government-compiled law it is written that the filing of patent rights on an invention or invention has requirements that need to be fulfilled.In Indonesia, patents will be highly protected to protect the intellectual property rights of every Indonesian. According to the applicable law, namely Number 14 of 2001 inventor who has patent rights for a product or idea, has full power and can process persons who commit plagiarism, distribute and trade the patented product into legal channels in accordance with the basis of patent law regarding violations of criminal provisions in Chapter XV.


Author(s):  
Juliia Kanaryk ◽  
◽  
Vladyslav Nosinskyi ◽  

The article is devoted to the review of novelties of the legislation in the part of disposition of property rights to objects of patent law and know-how. Based on the analysis of the existing legislation, it is established that there is an exclusive list of the following agreements: license to use the object of intellectual property rights; license agreement; agreement on the creation by order and use of the object of intellectual property rights; agreement on the transfer of exclusive intellectual property rights; another agreement on the disposal of intellectual property rights. It is noted that the agreement on the transfer (use) of «know-how» differs from that for the patent. The basis for granting the right to use «know-how» is not an exclusive right, but a de facto monopoly on the object of the agreement. «Know-how» in contrast to the patented invention can not be used without receiving it from the owner. The consequence of this is the need not only to grant the right of use under the contract, but also the transfer of the «knowhow» in full. It is noted that the legislator has significantly simplified the contractual procedures for granting the right to dispose of property rights for pharmaceutical companies due to the need to combat the pandemic. Lists of substances and medical procedures, medical equipment that cannot be the subject of patent protection have been established. It is emphasized that the legislator does not take into account the current level of digitalization, where the right to own or use intellectual property is certified by numerous electronic methods. For example, by confirming electronic licenses, user terms, affiliate programs with a number of intermediaries. Accordingly, it is necessary to expand the list of possible reliable ways of certifying contracts, which could be considered written or be equated to such a way. The bill №5552, which proposes amendments to the law «On Copyright and Related Rights», in terms of combating «patent trolling» was analyzed. The authors of the bill propose a number of administrative procedures that will help to respond quickly to such unfair actions of competitors. At the same time, it is noted that with the expansion of the contractual procedure, some of these cases could be avoided. It is proposed, as part of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, to introduce compulsory licensing, in order to reduce the real cost of drugs against the virus, as well as the logistics of specialized hospitals.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (44) ◽  
pp. 40-50
Author(s):  
Oksana Korotiuk

The article analyzes the criminal law provisions of the Criminal Code of 1903, which provided the responsibility for encroachments on objects of intellectual property rights, and defined the peculiarities of criminal legal protection of economic and other interests of subjects of intellectual property rights in Ukrainian lands according to these criminal legal norms. The Criminal Code of 1903 was marked by a significant difference from the Criminal Code of 1845, expressed as a significant reduction in the number of criminal acts, the general humanization of criminal punishment, and in a more progressive approach to the design of criminal law. For example, in Art. 1, the principle of "nullum crimen sine lege" was directly affirmed for the first time, while in criminal laws of earlier times it was laid down but only proceeded from the general content of the articles. Analysis of the criminal law of the Criminal Code of 1903 provisions allowed to conclude that the criminal legal protection of objects of intellectual property rights was carried out at the expense of: 1) criminal law, which provided for liability for attacks on objects of copyright and patent law. In this case, the legal protection of copyright objects was closely linked to the censorship and, in fact, was inseparable from it; 2) the provisions establishing criminal liability for actions related to the disclosure of secrets; 3) provisions relating to the introduction of goods into the market and their circulation there, as well as the importation of goods into the territory of the Russian Empire, which provided for liability for the following acts: a) acts related to the illegal manufacture of works and their introduction into circulation, in including the illegal circulation of equipment that may be used for the illicit manufacture of works; b) acts related to the illicit sale or other distribution of works; c) other acts related to the illegal circulation of objects of intellectual property rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document