PATENTS IN THE FIELD OF OUTER SPACE

An Indian space craft successfully entered Mars' orbit, marking it as the first interplanetary mission for the country making India in the processof being the first Asian nation to reach the Red Planet— and the first nation in the world to successfully reach Mars on its first attempt.This post is devoted to raise awareness about the patent laws related to outer space. Introduction As we all know patentsare granted by state or national governments to inventors.Patents are territorial and are only enforced within the jurisdiction of the granting government. For example, holder of a U.S. patent may only be able... Read More

Practice of Patent Asserting Entities: Boon or Bane: Global Innovations

Introduction Patent troll relates to a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in an opportunistic and unduly aggressive manner, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention. Various terms such as patent trolls, patent monetization companies, or patent assertion entities are used for such entities; however, irrespective of term used, it solely talks about companies that conduct very little research to create new ideas and produces no products. Instead, they hold patents in which they were not involved at any level: ranging from designing, manufacturing or process associated with that... Read More

Emcure’s Notice of Motion succeeds against Corona Remedies: Bombay High Court

In the recent decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Emcure Pharmaceuticals v Corona Remedies, the Hon’ble court decided on the issue of deceptive similarity, acquiescence and balance of Convenience in favor of Emcure Pharmaceuticals. Facts of the case: The plaintiff’s trademarks ‘OROFER’ and ‘OROFER XT’ are registered as word marks since 1996 with the trade mark registry in class 5 in relation to medicinal and pharmaceuticals preparations for iron  deficiency, anaemia, methylcobalmin deficiency, folic acid deficiency, zinc deficiency and so forth. On, 10 January 2006 the plaintiff became aware of the advertisement of the defendant’s trade mark... Read More