Introduction

The President of India gave his approval to the “Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021”, which led to the IPAB’s (“Intellectual Property Appellate Board”) abolition. As a result of this modification, IPAB proceedings will once more fall under the purview of the High Courts and commercial courts. The “Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021” transferred the IPAB’s authority over copyright cases to the commercial courts, while its authority over pending and new patent, trademark, geographical indication, and plant variety matters was transferred to the High Courts.

One of the major developments as stated includes

“The protection granted to Pepsico India for the existent potato variety, FL 2027, which is notably the variety used in its Lay’s chips and over which Pepsico had previously sued some farmers in Gujarat for infringement, was revoked by an order from the Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority. The application submitted by Pepsico for an “extant variation” of potatoes used in its Lay’s chips was the subject of the said order. It should be emphasised that extant varieties have a lower barrier when applying for registration because these varieties aren't subject to the “novelty” standards as per section 15(2) of the PPV & FR Act, 2001 . The order addressed Pepsico’s failure to establish its locus as the assignee of the person who discovered the variety and, as a result, revoked the registration. Despite having a procedural diligence impact alone, the current order is largely regarded as a historic victory for farmer’s rights in India.”

Other Important Developments

“The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2021” were introduced in September of that year by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The amended definition of “educational institutions” set out in Rule 2(ca) of the new regulations includes universities established by Central Acts, Provincial Acts, State Acts, and any other educational institution recognised as such by the federal or state governments. The regulations stipulate “a reduction in the price of the patent for educational institutions.”

[Image Sources : Shutter stock ]

In order to get feedback, the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021 were circulated as a draught in October 2021 by the High Court of Delhi.“The rules were developed by a two-person committee made up of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Sanjeev Narula to investigate the idea of creating an Intellectual Property Division (IPD) in the High Court that would solely deal with matters involving intellectual property issues.”

A public interest litigation before the Bombay High Court revealed the latitude the patent regime offers in fostering patient interest and access to drugs. The PIL notes that “Bedaquiline and Delamanid, two effective anti-TB drugs, must be made rapidly available to patients in order for the government’s National TB Elimination Programme to be successful.” It was argued that this requirement could not be met since the government relies on donations from patentees, which are reportedly made in extremely small sums. In line with Sections 92 and 100 of the Patents Act, the petition urged the government to implement the compulsory licencing methods. In response, the Court instructed the Government to take the issues into account.“The Joint Parliamentary Committee Report on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was delivered to the Parliament on December 16, 2021. The Bill establishes rules for the processing of personal data of Indian people by the government, Indian-incorporated companies, and foreign enterprises. With regard to trade secrets and data localization, which have an impact on the intellectual property protections offered to foreign entities by their home regimes, the Bill’s creation of a framework for data sharing among various stakeholders will have an impact on intellectual property rights.”

In the case of Renaissance Holdings Inc v. B Vijaya Sai &Ors , the Supreme Court clarified Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, asserting that in situations where a trademark registration already exists and the infringing trademark is being used for the identical or similar goods, the plaintiff need not prove the existence of goodwill and reputation. Regarding obviousness in patents, the Delhi High Court ruled in FMC Corp v. Best Crop Science LLP that the genus patent’s claims must enable a person skilled in the relevant field to arrive at the specie patent without exerting their creative faculties and that the decisions made must be plainly evident for a specie patent to be declared obvious.

CONCLUSION

It is acceptable to assert that these quickly developing innovations ensure that intellectual property owners’ rights are properly acknowledged, successfully supported by courts and tribunals, and unaffected by the epidemic. These developments suggest that intellectual property owners have a promising future. There is still work to be done, though, which calls for a mix of efficient governmental programmes and policies, monetary incentives, funding, and technology infrastructure. It is urgently necessary to establish an appropriate legal framework for intellectual property rights that is in line with the evolving dynamics of innovation, to speed up the processing of patent and trademark applications, to actively engage in agency coordination efforts, and to appoint qualified personnel as well as additional staff to deftly handle IPR matters. A sustainable IPR framework might potentially be created through the combined efforts of the government, business, civil society, and research groups acting at the level of schools, colleges, and universities.

Author : Kaustubh Kumar, A Student at student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, in case of any query, contact us at Global Patent Filing or write back us via email at support@globalpatentfiling.com.

REFERENCES

Pepsico India v. Gujarat Potato Farmers.

Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001.

Renaissance Holdings Inc v. B Vijaya Sai &Ors, Civil Appeal No 404 of 2022

FMC Corp v. Best Crop Science LLP, I.A.5801/2021 in CS(COMM) 69/2021.