Patentability-First step of monetization of new invention

An invention requires a huge amount of money as well as dedicated effort. If you do not turn your unique idea into a positive outcome, your effort will be meaningless. Your dream will be successful by only patenting your idea. It is wise to hire a patent attorney for submission of patent application. The main duty of a patent lawyer is to search the patentability of the invention, drafting patent submission form and assisting the inventor to get approval of the submitted patent. However, if you do a preliminary research on the patentability and provide the feedback to your hired patent attorney about the invention, it will save your money and time. In this article, I will provide you some tips about the patentability search for the beginners.

Whenever you want to patent a new invention, you have to make patentability search to confirm whether this type of invention was already recorded in prior art. Prior art is not an artistic material, it is a knowledge related to invention. Prior art includes trade journals, previous patents, various publications and public discussions.
The inventor will get the information about the five basic requirements for patentability from prior art.

• Patentability of the subject matter
• Utility
• Novelty
• Non obviousness
• Enablement

Patentability of the subject matter: The patentable subject matter clearly defines what invention is. The patent is granted on the basis of this definition. Under section of 2(1)(J) of TRIPS agreement invention is defined as a new product or process that involves inventive step and capable of industrial utility. The abstract ideas and substances found in nature will not be treated as invention.
Utility: The invention must be useful. The patent examiner will determine whether the asserted utility is specific, substantial or credible.
Novelty: The patent of the idea will be granted unless the claimed invention was published in print media or it is already available for public use before the filing date of patent application.
Non obviousness: Similar types of descriptions may be available in the patent art. The patent attorney can understand the field of patent drafting and draft the application that covers the specific point. The process reduces the chance of rejection.

Enablement: Enablement is disclosure of specification that describes the workings and legal definitions of the invention. The disclosure is a part of every patent application.
The inventor should remember that patent application is a legal document. The beginners will be confused if they want to understand the essence of documents by literally meaning of the words. They have to think the meaning of the claim statements in wider and broader aspects.
The patentability analysis is another vital part of the patent submission. The analysis evaluates which part of the invention will be patented. The patent attorney can understand the field of patent drafting and draft the application that covers the specific point. The process reduces the chance of rejection.
The inventor should be very much cautious about the rejection of the patent application. Apart from losing time and money, there are many adverse effects of the rejection. The unique idea of the inventor will be exposed to the world and the competitors will get access to his work. The competitors can reap the benefits from his invention.
You may contact Lex Protector for more information.

UK Court orders the blocking of music download sites

About ten major music record companies of United Kingdom filed a copyright infringement suit against six leading internet service providers (ISP) in the High Court of Chancery Division. The claimants claimed that certain websites had infringed the copyrights act and sought a court order to stop downloading the copyrighted materials of the claimants from the sites of those ISPs. The six ISPs include Virgin Media, British Telecommunications and British Sky Broadcasting to block H33t, Kickass Torrents and Fenopy.
The claimants sought the blocking orders under the provision of Section of 97A clause of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. According to the clause:-

“The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.”

• The music companies claim that the user of the websites copy and download a copyrighted content selecting it from a torrent file. The user save that copied files in his computer. If the file contains the copyrighted materials and the user does not have the permission of copying the materials, it is treated as copyright infringement under the section 17 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The claimants produced evidence in support of their arguments.
• The user of the computer will now communicate the downloaded files to the others from his computers. It is the violation of section 20 of copyright act of UK.

British Telecommunication (BT) argued that a BT subscriber, who was a member of Newsbin2, downloaded copyrighted materials from Newsbin2 site using the service of BT. In that case, the user is not using the service of BT, he is using the service of Newsbin2 for the infringement of copyrighted materials.
Justice Arnold of the Chancery Division observed that the incident of copyright has been established. The defendants also did not deny the charge of infringement. He raised four points to decide who were liable for the offence. The clarifications of these points are required to establish jurisdiction under Sec 97A. The questions are:-

1. Are the defendant service providers?
2. Who have infringed copyright of claimants, users or the operators of the website?
3. Do the users and operators of the websites use the defendants’ service to infringe the claimants’ websites?
4. Did the defendants have commercially gained by copyright violation using their services?

Justice Arnold said that the defendants were service provider had been settled in a previous case “ Dramatico v. Sky (No. 2)” .

He also said that the entire purpose of the websites were to attract users providing them the free copying and making available the contents that were interested in otherwise pay money for it. The websites earned handsome revenue from the advertising in the page. Therefore, the service could not avoid their responsibilities blaming on others. He also said that defendants knew that used their websites for copyright infringement.
Considering the above facts, Justice Arnold agreed wholeheartedly with the arguments of the claimants and gave the ruling in favor of the claimants.
For more information about the recent information on copyrights, TRIPS and patent laws please contact Lex Protector.

Who-Will-Be-Benefited-by-the-Agreement-Between-the-29-Major-Drug-Companies-and-INTERPOL-Against-the-Counterfeit-Drug/7474991/

Manufacturing, trade and distributions of the fake medicines and instruments are of major concern to the "World Health Organization" (WHO) and world's top ranked pharmaceutical companies. According to their observations, about 10-30 percent of the drug market has been captured by the fake drug manufacturers. The fake drug contains too little or too much active major ingredients. The use of the fake drugs is creating a major health risks in these countries. The genuine drug manufacturers are losing their business for this type of criminal activity. Big pharmaceutical companies were thinking about creating a mechanism to dismantle the drug rackets and illegal cross border trading of counterfeit drugs. Paris based international investigative agency INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K. Noble said:"With no country, no drug, no medical product immune from counterfeiting, a global effort is needed to combat this threat which puts the lives of millions of people at risk every single day". In this scenario, world's 29 large pharmaceutical companies have signed a landmark agreement with the Interpol to combat the menace of fake drugs. Novartis, Roche, Bayer, Abbott and Glaxo Smithline are some of the internationally renowned pharmaceutical companies who have signed to participate in the program.

However, the local drug manufactures of India and other developed countries have raised their concerns about the agreement. There is genuine reason behind their concerns. In the past few years, original genetic drugs from India and other countries have been confiscated at the various airports of European countries labeling the genetic drug as fake. The most interesting fact is that the confiscated drugs were shipped out for another developing country. The Indian Government spokesperson says that the seizure of high quality generic and the off-patent drugs manufactured by the domestic companies of the developing countries has become a regular practice in the European counties. It cannot be allowed as this practice is seriously hindering the access to the cheap drugs by the poor. The domestic pharmaceutical companies of the developing countries raised objections to the definition of fake drugs defined by WTO. They also alleged that the main intention of the agreement is to ruin the domestic genetic drug manufacturing companies. They pointed out that none of the 29 signatories manufacture the genetic drugs and they sell the branded medicine at an unreasonable exorbitant price in the third world countries. The main advantage of the genetic drug is that the price of it is much lower than the branded drug. Therefore, the poor people can afford it.
"World Health Organization" (WHO) recently defined the counterfeit drug as "a medicine, which is deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to identity and/or source. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products and counterfeit products may include products with the correct ingredients or with the wrong ingredients, without active ingredients, with insufficient active ingredients or with fake packaging.
In Jun 2012, India, Brazil and China jointly defended the rights of poor to access the cheap genetic drugs at WTO. In the meeting of trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), the representative of the developed countries argued that the substandard ingredients of counterfeit drugs put the lives of the patients at risks. On the other hand, the developing nations argued that WHO is not a proper forum for the discussion of counterfeit drugs. They said that the infringement of "intellectual property rights" (IPR) and substandard products are completely different issues. If the domestic manufacturers use the same formula and process for manufacturing genetic drug, it will be dealt by the "TRIPS" agreement.
For more information, you may contact Lex Protector

Controversy on Compulsory License Act in India

A compulsory license is a legal instrument by which a government can force the patent owner to license out their patent product to others. Compulsory licensing is a common practice in many countries. The practice is generally used in the field of pharmaceutical industries, technology, music and the performing Arts. It is a unique example of the patent law flexibilities. The clause was introduced in the “Trade-Related Aspects Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)” in June, 1995. .
      

The main objective of the compulsory licensing was to curb the monopoly of a company on a vital and important product that is used for human welfare. Although “TRIPS” agreement was to encourage the new innovations for the development of the people, yet the grant of monopoly has become counterproductive in some cases. The common people have been deprived from the use of the most essential pharmaceutical and other products due to the abnormal high price fixed by the monopoly corporate. This process is hindering the growth of human society. “TRIPS” was signed for the benefits of all cross-sections of the people. Therefore, compulsory licensing clause will protect the toiling masses from the abuse of “Intellectual Property Rights”.
        Many developing nations think that the access of the medicine is the basic right of every individual. Some big pharmaceutical companies fix the price of some life saving drugs at unreasonable exorbitant prices. Third world countries have passed the compulsory license to curb this unfair practice of the inventor companies. Brazil, Ecuador, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand have already taken the benefits of the law.
Though India is a party of “TRIPS” agreement from its inception, yet it did not issue the law since 2005. India introduced the compulsory licensing into Patent Act according to the recommendations by Ayyanger Committee. Prior to the implementation of the compulsory laws, the monopoly trade practices were controlled by the “Competition Act-2002″. Section 27 and 28 of the Act delegated a lot of power to the Competition Commission of India to curb the anti people monopoly practices of the corporate. If a business exploits the consumers taking unfair leverage, the Commission may sell off or transfer the property rights including property rights. .
    

Therefore, when Government proposed the “Compulsory Act Bill” in the Indian Parliament, a great debate began in favor and against the bill. Anti-bill lobby mentioned that “Competition Act-2002” is enough to curb the unfair monopoly trade practices. They also said that the act would deprive the inventor company from their legitimate profit. These companies invest a lot of money for research and development in healthcare and other industries. If the companies do not get proper compensation, they will not further invest money in research and development. As a result of it, the human society could not accept the challenge of fighting the new diseases or new inventions. The development of the human society will be stopped in long run. However, Ayenger Committee suggested a limited use of compulsory license Act to ensure the supply of the patented invention in India at a reasonable price. The issue is very much complex in nature. 
A number of observers suggested for including a mechanism that will cater the interests of both inventor companies and the common people of India. The most important suggestions came from the “Intellectual Property Rights” attorneys. They said that Government should encourage the companies to provide the patented drugs to the poor people through corporate social responsibilities program and Government should also create a mechanism by which the patients can get the medicines at subsidized rates. The inventor companies can help the poor by patient welfare program. If the inventor company cannot implement these measures within two years of the patent, the government can take legal action under the provision of compulsory license act.

Intellectual Property Theft-A Real Menace of the Digital Age

Overview: Internet is the most remarkable invention of the twentieth century. The internet has opened many new avenues for growing the business. It has also become a part and parcel of our lives. On the other hand, rapid download speeds, perfection of digital copying and the rise of e-commerce have increased the chance of piracy and counterfeiting. The robbing of creative ideas and innovations has become a menace in the digital age. The quantum of theft is increasing day by day. The thieves are using several new technologies to steal the intellectual properties (IP) of the creators. According to a rough estimate of “Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)”, US businesses lost 200 billion of Dollars in 2000 compared to 45 billion Dollars in 1999 by IP theft. At the same time, US Government is losing the substantial amount of revenues and US workers are also losing their jobs.

What is IP theft: IP theft is not the conventional type of physical property theft like pick pocketing and shop lifting. It is an invisible virtual theft. Therefore, it cannot be detected instantly. Another problem is that it is very difficult to identify the location or source of the theft. The intellectual property of a particular can be robbed from anywhere of the world through internet. Intellectual property theft includes copyright infringement, trademark infringement and patent infringement.
Nature of IP infringement: Legally, the term “theft” is not applied in the case of IP theft. It is termed as the violation or infringement of IP rights. There are various types of IP infringements. The fraudulent companies use online a logo or a band of the reputed company for selling the imitated product. Looking at the fake logo or brand, the customer purchases fake goods online assuming that he is purchasing it from the real company. Downloading or sharing original music or video from unauthorized sites is another example IP theft. In this case, the original company loses its legitimate revenue. According to an FBI survey, about 75% of the theft is perpetrated by the trusted insiders of the company. The trusted insiders disclose deliberately or unmindful the vital technology and customer database to the fake companies for fraudulent activities. The traffic report of online piracy and counterfeiting reveals that

21 e-commerce sites that sell fake products have attracted about 36 million visitors per year.
North America and Western Europe are the epicenter of the counterfeit internet sites.

The top three fraudulent websites generated about 21 billion traffics per year.
Legal protection against IP infringement: Multiple layers of security and safeguards are taken to protect the IP rights. Strong password controls, two factor authentic mechanisms, physical barriers, designated authorized access and control mechanisms are implemented to limit the access of the only appropriate person in the restricted area. However, the highest level of security measure can only minimize the threat of infringement; it cannot totally eliminate the risk of IP theft. In that case, the company can get the compensation suing the fraudulent sites. All the member countries of “Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have passed the laws to counter the piracy of IP. In US, the anti-piracy law is very stringent. A legitimate company can get the compensation up to 30,000 Dollars per infringement.
For more information about legal protection against IP infringement, contact Lex Protector

Internet is the most remarkable invention of the twentieth century

Overview: Internet is the most remarkable invention of the twentieth century. The internet has opened many new avenues for growing the business. It has also become a part and parcel of our lives. On the other hand, rapid download speeds, perfection of digital copying and the rise of e-commerce have increased the chance of piracy and counterfeiting. The robbing of creative ideas and innovations has become a menace in the digital age. The quantum of theft is increasing day by day. The thieves are using several new technologies to steal the intellectual properties (IP) of the creators. According to a rough estimate of “Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)”, US businesses lost 200 billion of Dollars in 2000 compared to 45 billion Dollars in 1999 by IP theft. At the same time, US Government is losing the substantial amount of revenues and US workers are also losing their jobs.

What is IP theft: IP theft is not the conventional type of physical property theft like pick pocketing and shop lifting. It is an invisible virtual theft. Therefore, it cannot be detected instantly. Another problem is that it is very difficult to identify the location or source of the theft. The intellectual property of a particular can be robbed from anywhere of the world through internet. Intellectual property theft includes copyright infringement, trademark infringement and patent infringement.

Nature of IP infringement: Legally, the term “theft” is not applied in the case of IP theft. It is termed as the violation or infringement of IP rights. There are various types of IP infringements. The fraudulent companies use online a logo or a band of the reputed company for selling the imitated product. Looking at the fake logo or brand, the customer purchases fake goods online assuming that he is purchasing it from the real company. Downloading or sharing original music or video from unauthorized sites is another example IP theft. In this case, the original company loses its legitimate revenue. According to an FBI survey, about 75% of the theft is perpetrated by the trusted insiders of the company. The trusted insiders disclose deliberately or unmindfully the vital technology and customer database to the fake companies for fraudulent activities. The traffic report of online piracy and counterfeiting reveals that

• The top three fraudulent websites generated about 21 billion traffics per year.
• 21 e-commerce sites that sell fake products have attracted about 36 million visitors per year.
• North America and Western Europe are the epicenter of the counterfeit internet sites.

Legal protection against IP infringement: Multiple layers of security and safeguards are taken to protect the IP rights. Strong password controls, two factor authenticable mechanisms, physical barriers, designated authorized access and control mechanisms are implemented to limit the access of the only appropriate person in the restricted area. However, the highest level of security measure can only minimize the threat of infringement; it cannot totally eliminate the risk of IP theft. In that case, the company can get the compensation suing the fraudulent sites. All the member countries of “Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have passed the laws to counter the piracy of IP. In US, the anti-piracy law is very stringent. A legitimate company can get the compensation up to 30,000 Dollars per infringement.
For more information about legal protection against IP infringement, contact Lex Protector

By Aurobind Panda
Lex Protector

Background of World Conference of International Telecommunication (WCTI-12)

International Telecom Union (ITU) convened a meeting from 3rd to 14th December 2012, at Dubai to review the draft International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). The purpose and the scope of the draft resolution is to find out a better communication system in today’s world. The main focus will be on the modern communication tools like internet, phone and the computer. In 1988, 178 member countries of ITU agreed to ITR at Word Administrative Telegraph and Telephone conference in Melbourne. The Melbourne Regulation came into force in the year of 1990. The main object of the ITR treaty was to provide a smooth communication system to the international community. ITR provided the guidelines on the tariffs exchanged between different carriers, the method of calculating the charges and the procedure of dispute settlement. ITR laid down the foundation of privatization of telecommunication sector and encourage the competition among the service providers. The net result of their approach is efficient communication at a lower cost.
From the beginning of the twenty first century, the communication technology was changed significantly. The increase use of network, inexpensive communication through mobile phones and new technology creates a huge market of telecommunication industries. In this environment, the main concern of the industry is the privacy of the customer. Industry also has to built an infrastructure to cope with the enormous growth of the market.
In this scenario, the member countries felt the need of revamping the old ITR. All the countries agreed in the point that International co-operation is required to face the challenge of current situation. It is not possible for the Government alone to solve the problem. Government can play the regulatory roles and the required investment will come from the private investment. The public and private partnership can only provide the satisfactory services to the customers and maintain the security and privacy of the customers. To meet the objective, ITU includes the members from the private companies, scientific and industrial organizations, financial institutes and telecom industries. About 200 academic institutes also participated in the activities.

A working group was formed to chalk out a draft resolution for changing the old regulation. The draft resolution has proposed some changes and included some new suggestions. Major propose changes and the additions were recommended in the following fields:

• Human right of access to communications
• International frameworks
• Interconnection and interoperability
• Security in the use of ICTs
• Protection of critical national resources
• Convergence.

ITU convened the World Conference of International Telecommunication (WCTI-12) to introduce a new binding regulation on the basis of draft resolution submitted by the working group. WCIT Chairperson Mohamed Al Ghanim mentions that the draft resolution is a major breakthrough. The final treaty will ensure the equitable and affordable access the communication to all sections of people.
For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact: Lex Protector
By Aurobinda Panda
Founder & C.E.O of Lex Protector International Law Office
Ph: +91-9658577326
Email | Website | Facebook | Twitter | Blog