EXHAUSTION UNDER INDIAN PATENT LAW: NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL?
Volume 3Issue II Year 2024
Dr. Ramneek Kaur
Assistant Professor, Amity Law School, Amity University Punjab, Mohali,
ramneekkaur29@yahoo.in
Table of Contents
Dr. Ramneek Kaur
Assistant Professor, Amity Law School, Amity University Punjab, Mohali,
ramneekkaur29@yahoo.in
Patent- patent of exhaustion- Repair- Reconstruction-Parallel imports.
1. P.G. Wodehouse, The Most of P.G. Wodehouse (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), p. 196.
2. The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (India).
3. Available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/patent [accessed 2 November 2023].
4. TRIPS Agreement, Article 27.1.
5. TRIPS Agreement, Article 28(1).
6. Shamnad Basheer and Mrinalini Kochupillai, �Exhausting� Patent Rights in India: Parallel Imports and TRIPS Compliance� (2008) 13 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 486.
7. Ibid.
8. J C Paul, �US patent exhaustion: Yesterday, today, and maybe tomorrow� (2008) 3(7) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 461.
9. US v. Moore [1984] 604 F 2d 1228.
10. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
11. F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Anr. v. Cipla Limited 48 (2008) DLT 598.
12. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
13. Shamnad Basheer, �India�s tryst with TRIPS: The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005�, (2005) 1 Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 30.
14. Uttam Gupta, �Patents (Amendment) Act 2005 - Setback for innovators and R&D� Business Line, 23 September 2005.
15. Ibid.
16. Biswajit Dhar and KM Gopakumar, �Effect of Product Patents on the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry� available at http://wtocentre.iift.ac.in/Papers/3.pdf [accessed June18, 2024].
17. Arghya Sengupta, �Parallel Imports in the Pharmaceutical Sector: Must India be More Liberal?� (2007) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 401.
18. Patents Act 1970 (India) s 107A(b).
19. Trade Marks Act 1999 (India) s 30(3).
20. CS(OS) No. 2285/2006 (Unreported Order) decided on February 20, 2007.
21. Notes on Clauses under the Trade Marks Bill, 1999 (India) (Bill No. XXXIII of 1999).
22. State Bank of Travancore v. Mohammad, AIR 1981 SC 1744.
23. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), available at http://www.saarc-sec.org/main.php [accessed 22 January 2024] and The Commonwealth, available at http://www.thecommonwealth.org [accessed 22 January 2024].
24. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
25. Debates in the Rajya Sabha, 23 March 2005, available at http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsdebate/deb_ndx/204/23032005/3to4.htm [accessed 20 June 2024].
26. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
27. Debates in the Rajya Sabha where Shri Jairam Ramesh, the Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, states that �� the relevant sections are Section 47, Sections 82-84 and Section 107 (a) and (b) which deals with parallel imports. � The short point that I want to make is that, on the issue of prices, on the issue of availability of patented medicine, on the issue of ability of the Government to retain right of ensuring that the patent is translated into a product, there are enough safeguards in the existing legislation both in the 1970 legislation, but more importantly in the revised Patents Act of 1970 reflecting new provisions for compulsory licensing, reflecting new provisions for parallel import particularly; and also reflecting new provisions for enabling the Government to import; and use and distribute for its own use either through itself or through the third party.� available at http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsdebate/deb_ndx/204/23032005/3to4.htm [accessed 20 June 2024].
28. Press Information Bureau, available at http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=8096 [accessed 20 June 2024].
29. Padmashree Gehl Sampath, �Intellectual property rights and innovation in a least developed country context: The case of Bangladesh� available at https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ldc2007_en.pdf (Visited on 26 June 2024).
30. Ibid.
31. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
32. AIPPI Report on International Exhaustion of Industrial Property Rights: United Kingdom (AIPPI Congress in Melbourne 2001), available at http://www.aippi.org/reports/q156/gr-q156-United%20Kingdom-e.htm [accessed 14 June 2024].
33. Patents Act 1970 (India) s 48.
34. H C Suman and another v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, New Delhi and others AIR 1991 SC 2160 and Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar AIR 1988 SC 1060.
35. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
36. Ibid.
37. Report of the Panel WT/DS114/R (17 March 2000).
38. Ibid.
39. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2007) 4 MLJ 1153.
40. 1966-3-All E. R. 871.
41. Ibid.
42. Debates in the Rajya Sabha, 23 March 2005, available at <http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsdebate/deb_ndx/204/23032005/3to4.htm> [accessed 28 January 2020].
43. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
44. G P Singh, Halsbury�s Laws of England (Butterworths, London, 2000) 174.
45. (No. 06-937) 453 F. 3d 1364.
46. Quanta Computer Inc v. LG Electronics Inc (No. 06-937) 453 F. 3d 1364.
47. Mallinckrodt Inc v. Medipart Inc. 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
48. Mark R Patterson, �Reestablishing the Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion� (2007) Patently-O Patent Law Journal 38 available at https://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2007/11/quanta.patterson.pdf [accessed 30 June 2024].
49. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
50. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. Neal 1899(1) Ch. D. 807.
51. Aro Manufacturing Co v. Convertible Top Replacement Co, 365 U.S. 336, 346 (1961).
52. J. Sai Deepak, �Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act: Does it Really Endorse International Exhaustion?� available at https://spicyip.com/2010/10/section-107ab-relook-needed.html [accessed 19 June 2024].
53. Ibid.
54. J. Sai Deepak, �Section 107A(b): Does It Really Endorse International Exhaustion?- II� available at https://spicyip.com/2010/10/section-107ab-does-it-really-endorse.html [accessed 20 June 2024].
55. Ibid.
56. J. Sai Deepak, �Section 107A(b): A Preliminary Summary of Thoughts On International Exhaustion� available at https://spicyip.com/2010/10/section-107ab-preliminary-summary-of.html [accessed 20 June 2024].
57. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
58. J. Sai Deepak, �When Can One Raise the Defense �Under� Section 107A (b): Purposive Construction� available at https://spicyip.com/2010/10/when-can-one-raise-defense-under.html [accessed 20 June 2024].
59. Supra note 58.
60. Ibid.
61. Prashant Reddy, �Customs Board issues circular allowing �parallel imports� under Patents Act and Trademarks Act� available at https://spicyip.com/2012/05/customs-board-issues-circular-allowing.html [accessed 20 June 2024].
62. Quanta Computer Inc v. LG Electronics Inc (No. 06-937) 453 F. 3d 1364.
63. Shamnad Basheer and Mrinalini Kochupillai, �Exhausting� Patent Rights in India: Parallel Imports and TRIPS Compliance� (2008) 13 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 486.
64. Ibid.
65.
References
1. P.G. Wodehouse, The Most of P.G. Wodehouse (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), p. 196.
2. The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (India).
3. Available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/patent [accessed 2 November 2023].
4. TRIPS Agreement, Article 27.1.
5. TRIPS Agreement, Article 28(1).
6. Shamnad Basheer and Mrinalini Kochupillai, �Exhausting� Patent Rights in India: Parallel Imports and TRIPS Compliance� (2008) 13 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 486.
7. Ibid.
8. J C Paul, �US patent exhaustion: Yesterday, today, and maybe tomorrow� (2008) 3(7) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 461.
9. US v. Moore [1984] 604 F 2d 1228.
10. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
11. F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Anr. v. Cipla Limited 48 (2008) DLT 598.
12. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
13. Shamnad Basheer, �India�s tryst with TRIPS: The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005�, (2005) 1 Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 30.
14. Uttam Gupta, �Patents (Amendment) Act 2005 - Setback for innovators and R&D� Business Line, 23 September 2005.
15. Ibid.
16. Biswajit Dhar and KM Gopakumar, �Effect of Product Patents on the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry� available at http://wtocentre.iift.ac.in/Papers/3.pdf [accessed June18, 2024].
17. Arghya Sengupta, �Parallel Imports in the Pharmaceutical Sector: Must India be More Liberal?� (2007) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 401.
18. Patents Act 1970 (India) s 107A(b).
19. Trade Marks Act 1999 (India) s 30(3).
20. CS(OS) No. 2285/2006 (Unreported Order) decided on February 20, 2007.
21. Notes on Clauses under the Trade Marks Bill, 1999 (India) (Bill No. XXXIII of 1999).
22. State Bank of Travancore v. Mohammad, AIR 1981 SC 1744.
23. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), available at http://www.saarc-sec.org/main.php [accessed 22 January 2024] and The Commonwealth, available at http://www.thecommonwealth.org [accessed 22 January 2024].
24. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
25. Debates in the Rajya Sabha, 23 March 2005, available at http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsdebate/deb_ndx/204/23032005/3to4.htm [accessed 20 June 2024].
26. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
27. Debates in the Rajya Sabha where Shri Jairam Ramesh, the Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, states that �� the relevant sections are Section 47, Sections 82-84 and Section 107 (a) and (b) which deals with parallel imports. � The short point that I want to make is that, on the issue of prices, on the issue of availability of patented medicine, on the issue of ability of the Government to retain right of ensuring that the patent is translated into a product, there are enough safeguards in the existing legislation both in the 1970 legislation, but more importantly in the revised Patents Act of 1970 reflecting new provisions for compulsory licensing, reflecting new provisions for parallel import particularly; and also reflecting new provisions for enabling the Government to import; and use and distribute for its own use either through itself or through the third party.� available at http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsdebate/deb_ndx/204/23032005/3to4.htm [accessed 20 June 2024].
28. Press Information Bureau, available at http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=8096 [accessed 20 June 2024].
29. Padmashree Gehl Sampath, �Intellectual property rights and innovation in a least developed country context: The case of Bangladesh� available at https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ldc2007_en.pdf (Visited on 26 June 2024).
30. Ibid.
31. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
32. AIPPI Report on International Exhaustion of Industrial Property Rights: United Kingdom (AIPPI Congress in Melbourne 2001), available at http://www.aippi.org/reports/q156/gr-q156-United%20Kingdom-e.htm [accessed 14 June 2024].
33. Patents Act 1970 (India) s 48.
34. H C Suman and another v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, New Delhi and others AIR 1991 SC 2160 and Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar AIR 1988 SC 1060.
35. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
36. Ibid.
37. Report of the Panel WT/DS114/R (17 March 2000).
38. Ibid.
39. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2007) 4 MLJ 1153.
40. 1966-3-All E. R. 871.
41. Ibid.
42. Debates in the Rajya Sabha, 23 March 2005, available at <http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsdebate/deb_ndx/204/23032005/3to4.htm> [accessed 28 January 2020].
43. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
44. G P Singh, Halsbury�s Laws of England (Butterworths, London, 2000) 174.
45. (No. 06-937) 453 F. 3d 1364.
46. Quanta Computer Inc v. LG Electronics Inc (No. 06-937) 453 F. 3d 1364.
47. Mallinckrodt Inc v. Medipart Inc. 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
48. Mark R Patterson, �Reestablishing the Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion� (2007) Patently-O Patent Law Journal 38 available at https://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2007/11/quanta.patterson.pdf [accessed 30 June 2024].
49. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
50. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. Neal 1899(1) Ch. D. 807.
51. Aro Manufacturing Co v. Convertible Top Replacement Co, 365 U.S. 336, 346 (1961).
52. J. Sai Deepak, �Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act: Does it Really Endorse International Exhaustion?� available at https://spicyip.com/2010/10/section-107ab-relook-needed.html [accessed 19 June 2024].
53. Ibid.
54. J. Sai Deepak, �Section 107A(b): Does It Really Endorse International Exhaustion?- II� available at https://spicyip.com/2010/10/section-107ab-does-it-really-endorse.html [accessed 20 June 2024].
55. Ibid.
56. J. Sai Deepak, �Section 107A(b): A Preliminary Summary of Thoughts On International Exhaustion� available at https://spicyip.com/2010/10/section-107ab-preliminary-summary-of.html [accessed 20 June 2024].
57. Basheer and Kochupillai (see n 6).
58. J. Sai Deepak, �When Can One Raise the Defense �Under� Section 107A (b): Purposive Construction� available at https://spicyip.com/2010/10/when-can-one-raise-defense-under.html [accessed 20 June 2024].
59. Supra note 58.
60. Ibid.
61. Prashant Reddy, �Customs Board issues circular allowing �parallel imports� under Patents Act and Trademarks Act� available at https://spicyip.com/2012/05/customs-board-issues-circular-allowing.html [accessed 20 June 2024].
62. Quanta Computer Inc v. LG Electronics Inc (No. 06-937) 453 F. 3d 1364.
63. Shamnad Basheer and Mrinalini Kochupillai, �Exhausting� Patent Rights in India: Parallel Imports and TRIPS Compliance� (2008) 13 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 486.
64. Ibid.
65.