Some Famous Cases: 1) Bayer Compulsory Licensing Case: Relevant section: Section 84 (1) of the Patents Act 1970. In 2008 Bayer obtained the patent for the anticancer drug Nexavar. On March 2012, Nacto was granted the compulsory license for the manufacture and marketing of Sorafenib tosylate. Bayer’s tablet cost INR 2500 while Natco’s INR 75. The reason for invoking CL: Bayer did not market the drug for 4 years after taking the license. Due to lack of availability of life-saving cancer drugs to patients’ government granted CL to Nacto. Bayer moved IPAB against the order of granting CL to Nacto. Rare case of CL but a precedent in Indian patent legalese. Implications: Most drug companies will ask for compulsory licenses if the patent holder doesn’t …show more content…
A large amount of resource both in terms of money as well as time is wasted due to this. This not only affects the domestic business but also discourages foreign investors from investing in the country. Therefore, it is imperative that the IPR litigations are effective and quick. The following are the significant rulings of the Supreme Court which throws light on the approaches followed by the courts in India regarding IPR litigations. 1. Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited JT 2009 (12) SC …show more content…
The Coca-Cola Company Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd Manu/DE/2698/2009 Coco-Cola, by a master agreement had sold the MAAZA including all rights, knowledge and IPR for India only. But the defendant files an application for registration of the trade mark in Turkey. Bisleri sent a legal notice repudiating the agreement between Coco-Cola and Bisleri leading to the litigation. Coco-Cola claimed permanent injunction and damages for infringement of trademark. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the existence of threat of infringement would entitle the court to entertain the suit. It was also held that the exporting of goods from a country is to be considered as sale within the country from where export occurs. 4. Novartis v. Union of India [CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 20539-20549 OF 2009] The case started after the application by Novartis for patenting one of its drugs named “Gleevec” by covering it under the word invention mentioned in Section 3 of Patents Act, 1970. After a seven-year long battle, the Supreme Court rejected their application giving the following reasons. • The absence of any new invention or discovery of a new drug which requires filing of
In light of the overwhelming evidence that she took the samples, the clinic's decision to terminate her in the middle of her FMLA leave didn't raise a question of fact about whether her termination was related to her use of FMLA leave. Thus, the court granted the clinic summary judgment on the interference claim. Bloom v. Group Health Plan, Inc., Case No. 12-3060 (MJD/JJG) (D. Minn., Aug. 13, 2014). Bottom line
Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability.
The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 was signed for the main purpose of promoting the research, treatment, prevention and diagnosis of rare disease or condition. Here the products which are used in rare disease can be drugs, biologics and medical devices. A rare disease means any disease which affects less than 200,000 persons in the United States or one in which the manufacturer has no expectation of recovering the money from development and sales in the United States. According to this act, there are certain incentives will be provided to the manufacturers who will develop orphan drug for the rare disease and condition. Thus, this act can encourage the treatment for rare disease.
This decision banned the use of drug in religious ceremonies. The decision was that drug use is an illegal personal action, not a government act, so it was unconstitutional. If a decision is controversial then a way to limit its impact is by the Executive branch refusing to enforce a Court’s decision. If this happened, the decision would likely have little effect.
Case Analysis Paper / Discussion MBA 623 Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Shamalbhai Paper # Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 2006) Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim.
In the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, the respondent brought an antitrust action against Abbott Laboratories claiming that they had violated the Robinson-Patman Act. The pharmaceutical manufacturers had sold drugs to not-for-profit hospitals at lower prices then to the commercial pharmacies (Showalter, pg 452). The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, which was an amendment to the Clayton Antitrust Act (Elfand, n.d.), had made it unlawful to discriminate by placing a pricing difference between buyers of similar goods, when “the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition” (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). As the petitioners, Abbott Laboratories claimed that the price
To demonstrate this, Skloot mentions, “the ruling didn’t prevent commercialization; it just took patients out of the equation and emboldened scientists to commodify tissues in increasing numbers”. It becomes apparent that taking a doctor to court in the 1950s often had no effect, except that the doctor would be more reluctant to share his or her research with fellow scientists. Today, however, there are more laws in place and if a doctor was found to have broken the law, her or she would lose their medical
Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U.S. 143 (1920) U.S. Sup. Ct. Facts: 1886 marked the invention of a caramel-colored soft drink created by John Pemberton. Coca-Cola got its name after two main ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. The Coca-Cola Company is suing Koke Company of America from using the word Koke on their products. They believe Koke Company of America is violating trademark infringement and is unfairly making and selling a beverage for which a trademark Coke has used.
Legislation P3- Explain relevant sections of key legislation and associated guidelines with regard to the administration of medicines. M1- Discuss how organisational policies and procedures are influenced by legislation and guidelines with regard to the administration of medicines. D1- Evaluate the effect of legislation and guidelines on the administration of medicines. In this assignment I am going to be explaining what different types of legislations and guidelines are in place when it comes to handling medicines in a health and social care setting.
A look at how one man and his backing help keep an entire pharmaceutical company in the position of running a monopoly. This man is named
When the United States federal government began to intervene in the food and drug businesses, the history of early food regulation in the United States started with the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. This was the first of significant consumer protection laws that were enacted by the federal government in the 20th century which also led to the creation of the food and drug administration. The main purpose was to ban foreign and interstate traffic in the adulterated or the mislabeled food and drug products. It is directed by the US Bureau of chemistry to inspect products and to refer offenders to prosecutors.
Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability.
Every citizen in the United States has individual rights protected by the Constitution. This protection also includes businesses that have gone through the legal process to become a legal entity ; more commonly known as becoming a corporation. Many times these individual rights, protected by the Constitution, conflict with the common good and as history shows, the courts consistently side with the common good when faced with a case that pits these two against each other. Big Pharma are corporations exercising their individual rights to market, and sell their product to consumers. In the process, the common good is suffering.
Coca-Cola strives to utilize every strategy available to become successful whenever it launches its business in overseas markets. Pepsi seemed to have discovered Coca-Cola’s disadvantages and it was using them to check Coke’s dominance. The new market structure brought about cut throat competition between the two cola giants. However, the competition ate into a large chunk of the two companies’
Many new companies to enter the market without burden of costly tasks such as research and development, clinical trials and manufacturing of drugs. Moreover, patent expiry is one of the reasons which is offering opportunities for lower cost generic manufacturer in terms of greater market access. Additionally, the government has increased their focus on healthcare cost cutting. It is creating pressure on the authority to allow early introduction of low-cost drugs in the