Google Takes Defamation Case to India’s Supreme Court

An Indian Supreme Court hearing starting Monday on whether the local unit of Google Inc. is liable for allegedly defamatory comments made on its blogging site, will help decide how Internet companies do business in the growing south Asian market.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to start hearing arguments from the U.S. tech giant on Monday in the case brought by Visaka Industries Ltd., a construction materials company, which claims an activist used the Google blogging site Blogspot.com to spread false information about Visaka

Google lost the case in a High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court, saying it should not be held responsible for everything on its sites as it cannot control what users post.

Other search engines, blog sites, social media sites and even online retailers could be affected by the outcome of the case, lawyers said. The hearing could take months before a final judgment is delivered.

“People may not even roll out new products,” in India, depending on the outcome of the case, said an executive at a global technology firm. “It’s not worth the effort of investing.”

Google India argues that it can’t be held liable for content posted by users on a platform which is hosted by its parent company Google Inc.

Google Inc. didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the case.

India represents one of the last great untapped markets for Internet companies. The number of Internet users in Asia’s third largest economy is likely to jump to more than 500 million by 2015 from around 200 million today, according to an estimate by consulting firm McKinsey and Co. 

The case against Google was brought by Visaka Industries–a company based in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad which makes corrugated cement and asbestos fiber sheets—after an anti-asbestos blog hosted by Google’s Blogspot.com contained allegations that Visaka was being protected because it was backed by leaders of the ruling Congress party.

The author of the post Gopala Krishna said he still stands by his post, though he hasn’t been formally informed of the charges or the case.

“Whatever Google has said (in court) has supported freedom of expression,” Mr. Krishna told The Wall Street Journal. “They have done the right thing by not removing the content.”

A spokesman for the Congress party could not be reached for immediate comment.

Visaka said it had no connection to the party and filed a case charging Google India with criminal conspiracy, defamation and publishing content which is defamatory.

Google India challenged the charges at the High Court in the Southern Indian State of Andhra Pradesh and lost in 2011. It appealed to the Supreme Court which is beginning hearings on Monday.

If Google loses again it will be “liable for criminal activities on its network,” and have to step up its monitoring of what goes on online in India “Exercising of due diligence is a critical aspect for limiting liability of intermediaries.”

Google managers could be punished with up to life imprisonment and fines from 100,000 rupees ($1,595) to 1.0 million rupees and could also be asked to pay damages of up to 50 million rupees per violation.

India has started restricting Internet freedom in recent years, raising concerns among free speech activists.

In 2009 it amended its laws to hold Internet firms liable for “offensive,” “defamatory” or “blasphemous” content.  The amendments have been challenged in the Supreme Court but it has yet to rule.

In 2011,  India’s technology and telecommunications minister Kapil Sibal urged Internet companies to take down derogatory content from their websites

India needs to loosen these rules, regulations and political pressures or risk missing out of the Internet revolution, said Mishi Choudhary executive director of the Software Freedom Law Center based in New Delhi.

Sourcehttp://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/01/24/google-takes-defamation-case-to-indias-supreme-court/

Why India needs to take intellectual property seriously

Without reform of IP law, Indian companies - and broader economic growth - will remain stunted

DR. Reddy's Laboratories' chairman, called for the Indian pharmaceutical industry to move up the value chain from generics through investing in research and innovation, reported the Business Standard last week. Mr Prasad's aspirational call to action is, however, a sad reminder of how the government's policies create a hostile environment for investment and hobble Indian creativity. A salient example of these counterproductive policies are the attacks on some 15 medicine patents over the past 18 months. While hailed often as victories, these manoeuvres jeopardise the investment India needs to build intellectual capital, foster growth and employment, and develop medicines relevant to Indian needs.

The idea underpinning intellectual property (IP) protections is to encourage innovation. With an assurance of temporary exclusivity, people will invest resources to create new products and technologies, knowing that if they achieve a breakthrough their efforts will be rewarded. (It typically takes a decade and over $1 billion to develop a successful new drug.)

Creating incentives for innovation is an idea reaching back hundreds of years. In the 18th century the framers of the US Constitution included a provision that calls on the Congress to grant authors and inventors "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" in order to promote progress in science and the arts.

In the intervening years, robust IP rights have helped spark innovation and growth in countries - both developed and developing - throughout the world. As much as 40 per cent of US growth in the 20th century was a result of innovations, according to Nobel laureate Robert Solow. And one of India's most successful companies - Tata - has prospered on the strength of its IP. As of 2012, Tata Motors held 833 patents and Tata Steel had 1,230 patents.

Just as countries with strong IP rights have a foundation for prosperity, countries lacking such protections find innovation and growth more daunting. It is sadly unsurprising that India receives low marks on innovation scorecards. As President Pranab Mukherjee pointed out in his National Technology Day speech in May, "India's innovation bottom line is not very encouraging." He observed that the US and China receive 12 times as many patent applications as India.

Regrettably, he did not elaborate on how IP rights foster innovation - nor did he dwell on how these protections encourage foreign direct investment (FDI). It is well established that such investment brings with it new technologies, higher productivity and wages, and spillovers to other firms that spur modernisation. International businesses also bring R&D to countries that provide supportive environments. That increased R&D is often aimed at unmet local needs, such as drug company investment in tropical disease research. Weak IP protection directly discourages such R&D.

While India did revise its IP laws in 2005, enforcement has been inconsistent, at best, and carve-outs for generic drugs have compromised its integrity to the short-term benefit of the owners of generic companies. These shortcomings help explain why India attracts a mere three per cent of global R&D spending. (China, with its stronger IP law, attracts about 14 per cent and Japan about 11 per cent, reports the Battelle Institute.) These data reinforce the World Bank's findings that multinational firms locate R&D in developing countries with effective IP rights.

As noted, corporations consider IP protections when making decisions about where to direct their FDI. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has found that a one per cent change in the strength of a country's IP rights environment is associated with a 2.8 per cent increase in FDI inflows. That's bad news for India. From 2010 to 2012, the United Nations reports, India's stock of FDI totalled just 11.8 per cent of its GDP. The average for all developing economies was 30 per cent.

While these data underscore India's failure to attract foreign investment, some argue that IP conflicts with Indian interests. The reality is quite different, as explained by Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, chairman of Bangalore-based Biocon. "We must understand that intellectual property is important for India to embrace and respect and protect," she told the Press Trust of India. "If you cannot demonstrate that IP is safe in the country, I think you are not sending the right message, you are not going to find people investing in India."

Moreover, IP is not the obstacle to access to healthcare that some officials and activists allege. The Supreme Court's recent decision denying Novartis's rights to Glivec, a patent recognised in over 40 countries, has been acclaimed as an advance in patient access. However, Novartis was already ensuring that 95 per cent of the Indians who were prescribed Glivec received the cancer medicine for free.

The very real obstacles to medical access in India stem principally from the government's failings. It devotes a mere 1.2 per cent of GDP to health care, a level lower than in Haiti, and India lacks the insurance, doctors, clinics and hospitals necessary to make use of the full potential of modern medicine. These monumental challenges won't be addressed by headline-catching patent revocations, but will require sustained investment and reform.

If India is serious about attracting FDI and becoming an innovation hub, it should reform its IP law to ensure the protections that are a mainstay of the world's advanced economies. Absent such protections, R&D will regrettably go elsewhere, India's "innovation bottom line" will continue to disappoint, and, most troubling, the Indian people will be denied new opportunities, new knowledge, and new medicines.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/rod-hunter-why-india-needs-to-take-intellectual-property-seriously-114011100711_1.html

 

Protecting patents: India worst in world

Despite the current decade being called Indias “decade of innovation”, the country has been ranked at the bottom of the list of 25 countries in terms of its intellectual property (IP) environment. According to the 2014 International Intellectual Property (IP) Index by the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC), India’s percentage score has fallen from 25 per cent in 2012 to 23 per cent.

“The continued use of compulsory licences, patent revocations, and weak legislative and enforcement mechanisms raise serious concerns about India’s commitment to promote innovation and protect creators,” the report said.

The index, titled Charting the Course, gives a snapshot of the IP environment of 25 countries.

David Hirschmann, president and Chief Executive Officer of GIPC, said: “Nations – big and small – are wrestling with domestic legislation, judicial proceedings, criminal proceedings, and other processes regarding IP. These are all opportunities to chart a course toward a strong IP environment.”

He said along with these opportunities, some countries are taking backward steps on IP. “India, which again finished last in the second edition of the Index, continues to allow for the deterioration in its IP climate.”

The US is the highest-ranking country, followed by the UK and France. The five BRICS economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — continue to face serious challenges.

According to the report, several factors led to the deterioration of the IP environment in India. For instance, in the biopharmaceutical sector, “Indian policy continued to breach international standards of the protection of innovation and patent rights, revoking patents generally accepted around the world and announcing that other patented medicines are being considered for compulsory licences.”

The report also mentions the Supreme Court’s April 2013 ruling on the patentability of the anti-cancer drug, Glivec, that the drug does not meet patentability standards imposed by the Indian Patent Act.

India scored poorly in the areas of patents, copyrights, enforcement, membership and ratification of international treaties (in which it scores zero), among others.

“The continued use of compulsory licences, revocation of patents, and weak legislative and enforcement mechanisms across all IP rights raise serious concerns about India’s commitment to promoting innovation,” the report said.

Most high-income economies — with notable exceptions such as Canada, New Zealand, Chile, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — have robust national IP environments in place. The weakest national IP environments are in the lower-middle-income countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and India.

Some of the developments, which are expected to improve the IP climate globally include the fact that currently 12 countries — the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam — are negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which is expected to set a higher standard in the Pacific region, and help in protecting and enforcing IP.

Moreover, the US is currently negotiating with the European Union on a trade and investment partnership agreement, which is supposed to promote competitiveness, growth, and jobs.

China continues to show strength in the patents arena, earning the highest score of all middle-income countries and even outperform high-income countries such as Chile and the UAE. While progress is being made, China’s overall IP environment continues to see challenges, particularly with regard to trademark and trade secrets as shown by its overall score.

According to a 2013 study by the European Patent Office and the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market on the impact of IP rights and IP-based industries on the EU economy, IP-intensive industries generated almost 26 per cent of all direct and 35 per cent of indirect jobs.

The report also found that IP-intensive industries produced almost 39 per cent of EU-wide gross domestic product (GDP), worth almost euro 5 trillion.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/india-ranks-at-the-bottom-in-terms-of-intellectual-property-114012900371_1.html

IPAB refers opposition to anti-cancer drug to patent office

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has asked the patent office to consider afresh a matter related to the patent application of US-based Abraxis BioScience for its anti-cancer drug Abraxane, following pre-grant opposition by Hyderabad-based Natco Pharma.

Natco has developed a generic version of the drug under the brand name Albupax. Emails sent to Celgene, which acquired Abraxis BioScience in 2010, and Natco Pharma for comment on the order didn’t elicit a response till the time of going to press.

IPAB set aside an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, saying it was passed in “flagrant violation of principles of natural justice”. An order issued by IPAB Chairman K N Basha and technical member (patents) DPS Parmar said it remanded the matter to the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs for fresh consideration. It also directed the procedure be completed within three months from the date of the IPAB order.

On July 24, 2009, the assistant controller of patents & designs had refused to grant a patent to US-based Abraxis BioScience’s albumin-bound paclitaxel for an injectable suspension that had the brand name Abraxane and was used in the treatment of breast, lung and pancreatic cancers.

It has a net sales of $649 million and is expected to reach $1.5-2 billion by 2017, said the company's counsel. Abraxis Bioscience was acquired by New Jersey-based Celgene Corporation during 2010 and the upfront payment value of Abraxis BioSciences was at around $2.9 billion.

Natco Pharma complained that they were not offered a copy of an affidavit from Anindy Sircar who was a representative from Biocon, which was filed by Abraxis to establish enhanced efficacy. The bench ordered that the Assistant Controller should provide a copy of a particular affidavit to the generic manufacturer and they shall be given opportunity to give reply.

Justice Basha said that the bench is not going into the merits of the claim and contention of both the sides on merit and the order is only on the contention that there is a violation regarding principles of natural justice.

The first priority application for patent on the drug was filed by Abraxis on December 9, 2002 and the application was published under section 11 (A) on April 1, 2007, after which Natco Pharma has filed a pre-grant opposition against giving approval of patent to the drug. Natco has developed the generic version of the drug, under the brand name Albupax.

The originator firm argued in IPAB that the decision of Assistant Controller of Patents was wrong, and the order in dispute is liable to be set aside for gross violation of principles of natural justice. It contested that the Assistant Controller has heard and put in order on the grounds of insufficiency (which means the claims are not supported by the examples and description), which was not pleaded by Natco.

It also argued that the controller did not provide opportunity to the company to argue the dispute as per provision under Section 14 of the Patent Act, 1970, which is appealable. Instead, the petition was argued under section 25(1), which was not appealable during 2009. The counsel appeared for Abraxis informed that it was only after a Delhi High Court order observing that the pre-grant opposition is appealable, that the company could file an appeal with the IPAB.

The company also argued that during the procedure in the patent office, on March 10, 2009 Natco Pharma filed additional document and Abraxis objected taking this into consideration through an interlocutory petition. Without even looking into the said petition the controller proceeded to hear the matter, it alleged.

The counsel appeared for Natco argued that the impugned order does not cause any violation of principles of natural justice and said that the patent official was right in refusing patent for the drug.

The IPAB bench said that the finding and consideration on the ground of insufficiency, especially when it was not pleaded, “is illegal”.

Source:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/ipab-refers-opposition-to-anti-cancer-drug-to-patent-office-114012100719_1.html

No copyright or trademark in Yoga, pranic healing asanas, rules HC

Exclusive rights over yoga and pranic exercises, which are derivatives of ancient technique of yoga in India, cannot be claimed under the Copyright Act, the Delhi High Court has held.

The court made the observations while rejecting the plea of Philippines-based Institute for Inner Studies seeking to restrain some persons from teaching the 'asanas' (postures) claimed to be developed by the founder of the institute.

The court relied upon the position of law on the matter in the US and noted that the court there had denied protection to Yoga asanas in case of Bikram Choudhary who is also teaching modern yoga techniques in the US.

A bench of justice Manmohan Singh also held that the expression 'Pranic Healing' cannot be monopolised as trademark by the institute.

"The expression 'Pranic healing' as on the date of the application for the registration was prima facie non distinctive and was the name of the art or technique of doing exercise which was a facet of Yoga.

"The expression was not capable of distinguishing the services of the plaintiff from others due to its wide spread use in the field dating back from centuries ago," the bench said in its 150-page judgement.

The court delivered the judgement on a petition filed by the Institute, which was established by Late Samson Lim Choachuy, Master Choa Kok Sui, on April 27, 1987 and has trusts in various cities in India and the sub-continent.

The institute had moved the high court seeking prohibitory orders against one Charlotte Anderson and others from practicing pranic healing and conducting courses of the asanas adapted by the Master "without proper guidelines and issuing certificates or using literature" of the Master.

"The trade marks which have secured by the plaintiffs in India are all secured post the year 2000 as is evident from the list.

"If the expression Pranic Healing was the name of the art or technique of Yoga in the year 1906 finding place in the books in the field of Yoga, it prima facie appears to be highly doubtful as to how the expression is either inherently distinctive or for that matter capable of distinguishing the goods of one person from that of another.

"Having not made a truthful statement as to proprietorship of the mark pranic healing, the plaintiffs have secured the registration of the expression from the Registrar of the trade mark without informing about the correct proprietorship of the mark applied for on the date of the application."

 Source:http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-copyright-or-trademark-in-yoga-pranic-healing-asanas-rules-hc/445376-3.html

Intellectual Property – Copyright, Patent, Trademark, Industrial Design, Geographical Indications

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce. Intellectual property is protected in law by, for example, patents, copyright and trademarks, which enable people to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they invent or create. By striking the right balance between the interests of innovators and the wider public interest, the Intellectual property system aims to foster an environment in which creativity and innovation can flourish.

Intellectual property

Copyright

Copyright is a legal term used to describe the rights that creators have over their literary and artistic works. Works covered by copyright range from books, music, paintings, sculpture and films, to computer programs, databases, advertisements, maps and technical drawings.

Patents

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention. Generally speaking, a patent provides the patent owner with the right to decide how - or whether - the invention can be used by others. In exchange for this right, the patent owner makes technical information about the invention publicly available in the published patent document.

Trademarks

A trademark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises. Trademarks date back to ancient times when craftsmen used to put their signature or "mark" on their products.

Industrial designs

An industrial design constitutes the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article. A design may consist of three-dimensional features, such as the shape or surface of an article, or of two-dimensional features, such as patterns, lines or color.

Geographical indications

Geographical indications and appellations of origin are signs used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, a reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place of origin. Most commonly, a geographical indication includes the name of the place of origin of the goods.

Use of trademarks with same prefix by registered owners not infringement

The Bombay High Court has said if two parties got the registrations of trademarks done using identical prefix, they could use the same for all purposes and its exclusive use by only one owner was not allowed. While relying on the Trademarks Act, the court said use of such registered trademarks by another registered owner cannot be treated as "infringement".

The court was hearing a plea by Pune resident Pritikiran Katole against a district court's order restraining him from using the trademark of 'Godwa' tagged with his businesses. The lower court had observed that it was "breach of registered trademark" used by the applicant Harsha Katole. Pritikiran moved the High Court against the order.

Taking into consideration the Act's provisions, Justice Anoop V Mohta said, "The main objection with regard to the word 'Godwa' although both the parties got registration under the provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999, just cannot be the issue to pass such injunction order against the registered trademark owner. Such two persons cannot prevent each other from using the same registered trademark. The section itself contemplates that such registered trademark need to be treated as in their individual capacity `the sole registered proprietor'."

Justice Mohta observed that both the parties had been using the word 'Godwa' for long and were aware of each other's usage in their respective publication businesses. The court observed that Harsha had been using the title since 2008 and Pritikiran since 2006. However, no steps were taken by the former.

Pritikiran's counsel gave an undertaking to the court that the his client would not use the word 'Godwa' in the style or the design of the words that he had been using and also the manner of writing. In addition, the emblem registered by Harsha would not be used.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/use-of-trademarks-with-same-prefix-by-registered-owners-not-infringement-hc/1204876/

Foreigners can edit Indian newspapers: Delhi high court

The Delhi high court refused to intervene on a PIL seeking Indian citizenship should be the "pre-requisite qualification" for a person to be appointed as the editor of a publication in the country.

The HC said the issue must be settled by Parliament and hoped it will find time to take it up for discussion.

A division bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and VK Rao rejected the plea of Subramanian Swamy. "Hoping that Parliament would find some time to consider the Press and Registration of Books and Publication Bill, 2011, which is pending consideration now for over two years, we dismiss the writ petition declining relief as prayed for," the court said.

Swamy had approached HC seeking a direction to the central government to rectify a lacuna in the Press and Registration of Books Act regarding the definition of editor. But the HC said it is not for the judiciary to wade into the debate.

"It may be true that even the legislature has so opined evidenced by the fact that the Press and Registration of Books and Publication Bill, 2011 which has been cleared by the select committee and is pending before parliament has suggested amendment to the act by defining editor to mean a person who is not only an ordinary resident in India but is also a citizen of India. But it is for the legislature to consider the bill at the floor of the House and not for the court to legislate," it said.

Swamy had argued that the foreign direct investment policy of the Indian government, in the domain of publications, allows 74% stake with the precondition that in the print media, at least three-fourth of the board of a print media company must be Indians and all key editorial posts must also lie with resident Indians.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-18/india/45336343_1_subramanian-swamy-delhi-high-court-indian-citizenship

Intellectual Property Rights Contribution for Growth Of Foreign Direct Investment In India

India has become one of the sought after destinations for the investment in recent years due to the growing economy. As per reports, the Indian GDP is still growing at a rate of 6.5 percent in 2011-12 even after the recent slump in the economic growth. Being one of the biggest consumer markets in the world, it is always on the radar of investors and one of the sought after investment hub.

A new and growing brand is always looking for the market wherein its product has demand and India being a consumer market is always the best place to promote a new product. Many brands have established themselves in Indian market and are gaining out of it. Even with all these advantages, Indian markets also have certain challenges in terms of intellectual property rights which are required to be taken care of before entering the market.

Strong IP Regime Helps The Growth Of FDI In India:

A strong Intellectual Property rights regime would certainly lead to good market conditions for inviting FDI in India. The report 'India: International Outlier on IP' by the US chamber of Commerce said if India strengthens its intellectual property regime and increases its score on GIPC (Global Intellectual Property Centre) IP Index by 14.9 per cent, it can reach the level of FDI similar to Brazil, Russia and China. It has also been observed in the report that "India has been less able to attract FDI than its BRIC (Brazil, Russia, China) peers since the 1980s. Also in regards to FDI, India is noticeably weaker than other emerging economies, which started off at similarly low levels of investment and had similar IP rights environments to India's in the 1980s,"

A strong IP regime would certainly include realistic protection to intellectual property rights together with a mechanism for the enforcement of rights in case of misuse of the same. IP assets account for more than one-third of the net value of corporations in the United States and Europe, making protection of valuable IP critical for many would-be investing companies. In India the intellectual property like patents, trademark, copyright, design, geographical indication, plant variety, semiconductor and integrated circuits layout design have protection. Indian does not provide specific protection to trade secrets and also do not have a proper law for the data protection. These two are governed by the trademark law and information technology law and hence there is a requirement of specific law for these two as well in order to create a healthy environment wherein a creator of intellectual property right would feel comfortable to invest further. The current legislation on the IP laws should also be kept similar to the international standards in order to compete with other economies.

Challenges Regarding Intellectual Property Rights:

Trademark infringement/passing-off:

In this electronic age, the brands have acquired altogether a different meaning. Now a brand famous in one country can easily be recognizable in a country wherein the products of the brand have not yet marketed. This feature of modern market has led to the problem of infringement and passing-off of the brands which are known across the world but have not entered a particular market. Local merchant for taking advantages of the established reputation of the international brand, start manufacturing their own products under the same brand. Hence in order to curb this problem international brands can take action against the local merchants under the provision of trademark law wherein trans-border reputation has been recognized as one of the ingredients for taking action against infringement and passing-off.

Indian collaborat or treating the brand as its own:

One of the most common problems faced by the foreign collaborators in India is regarding the misuse of the brands by the Indian counterpart in the collaborations. More often than not in case of collaboration between a foreign corporation and an Indian corporation is regarding the dispute related to brand use. After a period of time Indian party to the collaboration starts claiming the brand of the foreign collaborator as their own even though it is clearly mentioned in the Act that the use made by the licensee of a trademark would always be counted as use of the licensor. Hence it is required by the foreign investor to always be aware of the misuse of its brand and should take timely action against any misuse by collaborator or any third party.

Compulsory licensing:

The recent grant of compulsory licensing to the generic pharmaceutical Natco Pharma has created a lot of wrong publicity to Indian IP environment even though Indian Patent Office had its own reasons to provide the same. As Patent is provided for a limited period of time of 20 years and out of these 20 years only few years are fruitful years for a patent to make money. An environment wherein the investor has the fear of loosing its patent due to compulsory licensing would certainly not improve the FDI in India. There are certain other challenges which an investor would face in India like counterfeiting, piracy, and data theft etc for which there is a need for a strong IP regime. A strong IP regime would help in gaining the confidence of foreign investors for inviting the FDI's.

The Relationship Between FDI And Economic Growth:

The FDI influx is an influential factor for economic growth. With the recent move by the Indian Government to relax the norm FDI norms will help the revival of the economy which was growing at the positive rate during the period of 2005-2010.

FDI involves not only the purchase of capital assets, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, buying property, and investing in plants and equipment, but, perhaps more important to developing countries, FDI can include the transfer of managerial expertise, technological skills, and access to the investing company's global network¹. Technology transfers from developed to developing nations are one of the most important forces behind economic development². Experts argue that FDI is "the most important channel through which advanced technology is transferred to developing countries³."

In a communication to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) noted:

Direct investment by MNEs [multinational enterprises] has the potential rapidly to restructure industries at a regional or global level and to transform host economies into prodigious exporters of manufactured goods or services to the world market. In so doing, FDI can serve to integrate national markets into the world economy far more effectively than could have been achieved by traditional trade flows alone. As with private sector investment more generally, the benefits from FDI are enhanced in an environment characterized by an open trade and investment regime, an active competition policy, macroeconomic stability and privatization and deregulation. In this environment, FDI can play a key role in improving the capacity of the host country to respond to the opportunities offered by global economic integration, a goal increasingly recognized as one of the key aims of any development strategy⁴.

The move to allow 100% FDI in telecommunication sector and changes in the preposition of FDI in other sectors is a positive step for inviting the investors to invest in India although for the same, the policies regarding the grant and safeguard of intellectual property rights should also need to be parallel with international standards.

ttp://www.mondaq.com/india/x/278514/Contribution+Of+Ip+In+Growth+Of+Fdis+In+India

Delhi High court - pleadings in patent copyright infringement cases

In two interesting judgments, in two different cases, Justice Murlidhar of the Delhi High Court has ruled on the scope of pleadings in patent infringement lawsuits and the liability of Indian subsidiaries of global app-stores in copyright infringement lawsuits filed by a book publisher.

1. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Mercury Electronics & Anr.

This is the famous Micromax case that we have blogged about previously on the blog overhere and here. Ericsson has sued Micromax for a sum of Rs. 100 crores for infringing 6 of its standard essential patents and even got an ex-parte interim injunction on the very first day.

This specific order of Justice Murlidhar, dated December 6, 2013 (available over here) was necessitated by an interlocutory application filed by Ericsson under S. 151 of the CPC requesting the Court to take on record certain affidavits by Ericsson’s executives and a claim-chart in a sealed envelope. The order is not very clear on why these affidavits were filed under S. 151 (which deals with the ‘inherent powers of the court and is supposed to be a provision of the last resort).

Micromax however did object to the attempt to bring on record the affidavits, with its counsel Akhil Sibal arguing as follows:

“Ericsson has failed to construe each of the suit patent claims in the body of the plaint itself. He submits that in a suit for infringement of patents, it was mandatory for the Plaintiff to set out, in detail, the claims under the patents as well as explain whether the patent covered a particular component/element/device/method etc. corresponding to a technical specification for a technology that forms a part of a standard. In other words, it was necessary for the Plaintiff to show that the suit patent was an essential patent for such standard. According to him, merely describing the function of each patent, as has been done in para 20 of the plaint, is insufficient. He stated that the plaint only described the net result that could be achieved by deploying the suit patents and not how that result was achieved.”

Sibal continued with the argument that “that the attempt to bring on record the affidavit of Mr. Olofsson ought not to be permitted. It would amount to indirectly permitting the plaint to be amended to make good an obvious defect. He submitted that Court should consider Ericsson’s prayer for interim injunction only on the basis of the existing pleadings without taking into account the affidavit of Mr. Olofsson.”

 Given the fact that Singh & Singh the law firm representing Ericsson, engaged three top-notch Senior Advocates to argue the matter, it was obviously a high-stakes issue for Ericsson.

Examining the precedents on the point, the High Court summarised the position of law as follows “In sum, the law explained in the above decisions is that the plaint itself must set out with sufficient clarity the specifications and the claims under the suit patent, the results they seek to achieve and in what manner the defendants have infringed the suit patents.”

After examining the affidavits, the Court concluded that the information disclosed in the affidavits was within the purview of the plaint & the documents filed along with the plaint and hence Ericsson was allowed by the High Court to bring on record the affidavits. Ericsson can therefore use these affidavits to argue even the interim injunction.

The decision could have been more nuanced. For example a plaint is supposed to contain only facts and the issue of claim construction, infringement etc. are mixed issues of law and fact. Indian courts should therefore give plaintiffs more leeway in drafting of their pleadings. Expecting plaintiffs to pack their plaints with the most intricate details of their patents is going to make matter very complicated.

2. Blueberry Books & Othrs v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Othrs

In this first of its kind lawsuit, Blueberry Books a publisher of children’s books had sued a web and mobile application developer for making available books on an app titled “Story Time for Kids”, whose copyright was owned by the Plaintiff, through various app-stores, without taking prior permission of the Plaintiff. The remaining defendants were Google Inc., Research in Motion, Apple and Amazon, along with their Indian subsidiaries (with the exception of Amazon), because the app in question was made available through these online stores.

The present judgment of Justice Murlidhar, issued on November 28, 2012 (available overhere) was with specific regard to Order 1 Rule 10 applications filed by the Indian subsidiaries of Google, RIM & Apple on the grounds that they had no control over the app-stores in question.

Blueberry, argued that the subsidiaries were necessary parties since they had assets within India unlike their parent companies. The Court declined to buy this argument concluding that “The mere fact that Defendant No.2 happens to be the subsidiary of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 a subsidiary of Defendant No.4 would not be sufficient for making them parties to the suit, if they are not, in any way, involved in the infringing activities complained of.” As a result, the Court deleted the subsidiaries of Google Inc. and RIM.

Apple,  was not so lucky. The Court ruled that prima facie it appeared that the iTunes stores could be accessed through the website of Apple India Pvt. Ltd. thereby giving enough cause to retain Apple India as a party to the suit. The Court ruled that the issue of whether Apple India Pvt. Ltd. had control over iTunes, could be decided only after evidence was led during trial.

Amazon Inc.,  argued that it should be exempted on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction since the app in question could be downloaded only within the U.S. Hence Amazon argued that only the American Courts would have jurisdiction over the claims for copyright infringement. Justice Murlidhar agreed and deleted Amazon from the array of parties.

ttp://spicyip.com/2013/12/delhi-hc-rules-on-pleadings-in-patent-lawsuits-app-stores-in-copyright-infringement-cases.html