<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>NOPR Collection:</title>
  <link rel="alternate" href="http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28863" />
  <subtitle />
  <id>http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28863</id>
  <updated>2026-10-11T08:21:55Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2026-10-11T08:21:55Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>The New EU Guidelines on Technology Transfer Agreements</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28930" />
    <author>
      <name>Cook, Trevor</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28930</id>
    <updated>2016-07-20T05:57:19Z</updated>
    <published>2014-05-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: The New EU Guidelines on Technology Transfer Agreements
Authors: Cook, Trevor
Abstract: The recent revision by the European&#xD;
Commission of its Guidelines on Technology Transfer Agreements, as well as the&#xD;
Block Exemption which accompanies it, granting a safe harbour from competition&#xD;
law challenge for certain such agreements, makes it timely to review how these&#xD;
revisions reflect some of the recent controversies that have arisen at an EU&#xD;
level as to relationship between intellectual property and competition law.
Page(s): 229-233</summary>
    <dc:date>2014-05-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Industrial Design in Different Jurisdictions: A Comparison of Laws</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28929" />
    <author>
      <name>Rahman, Sharifa Sayma</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28929</id>
    <updated>2016-07-20T05:56:37Z</updated>
    <published>2014-05-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Industrial Design in Different Jurisdictions: A Comparison of Laws
Authors: Rahman, Sharifa Sayma
Abstract: Commercial success of a product nowadays largely&#xD;
depends upon its attractiveness and visual appeal. Design &#xD;
nourishes creativity in the industrial and manufacturing sector and thereby&#xD;
helps to expand commercial activities ultimately leading to economic&#xD;
development. For this reason companies use intellectual property laws to&#xD;
protect industrial designs which are important tools for branding. Brand names&#xD;
affirmed by industrial designs have become the most important strategic factor&#xD;
for an increasing number of companies. This article explains how intellectual&#xD;
property laws protect design and compares different design protection systems&#xD;
in the US, the EU, Australia and Japan. This evaluation shows that design&#xD;
protection is considerably different amongst these four developed countries.&#xD;
The article also highlights some of the most important cases relating to&#xD;
industrial design in these jurisdictions. These four countries account for a&#xD;
significant number of design registrations and applications globally. Moreover,&#xD;
these countries have innovated and developed &#xD;
the industrial design protection system which entails that a rigorous&#xD;
comparison of these design systems could provide valuable insights for other&#xD;
jurisdictions.
Page(s): 223-228</summary>
    <dc:date>2014-05-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Patent Infringement by ANDA Filing</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28928" />
    <author>
      <name>Pohl, Mark</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28928</id>
    <updated>2016-07-20T05:55:26Z</updated>
    <published>2014-05-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Patent Infringement by ANDA Filing
Authors: Pohl, Mark
Abstract: Courts are in general designed to adjudicate&#xD;
past events (e.g., crimes and torts which have already occurred). Thus, for&#xD;
example, proving patent infringement merely requires showing the court the&#xD;
on-market product, and comparing it to the patent at issue. United States law,&#xD;
however, provides for a fundamentally-different kind of infringement: potential&#xD;
future infringement by a future generic pharmaceutical product which does not&#xD;
yet exist because it has not yet been approved for marketing. This type of&#xD;
infringement requires US courts to adjudicate future events, predicting the&#xD;
likely characteristics of the future generic pharmaceutical&lt;span style="mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB"&gt;. In&#xD;
requiring a court to adjudicate a potential future event, this type of infringement can pose a unique evidentiary challenge to&#xD;
judges. This article discusses how US judges evaluate potential future&#xD;
infringement by generic pharmaceuticals in case of a ‘Paragraph (iv)’ challenge&#xD;
of the Orange Book listed patents or a potential challenge to the patents&#xD;
envisaged on the Paragraph (iv) declaration. &#xD;
&#xD;
&lt;/span&gt;
Page(s): 218-222</summary>
    <dc:date>2014-05-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>India’s Options for Improving Affordable Access to Lifesaving Patented Medicines</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28927" />
    <author>
      <name>Nair, Gopakumar G</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nair, Karthika</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Fernandes, Andreya</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/28927</id>
    <updated>2016-07-20T05:44:48Z</updated>
    <published>2014-05-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: India’s Options for Improving Affordable Access to Lifesaving Patented Medicines
Authors: Nair, Gopakumar G; Nair, Karthika; Fernandes, Andreya
Abstract: On the lines of the cautionary observation&#xD;
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 156 of the Lordships’ order on&#xD;
Gleevec&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, the ongoing patent litigations in India seem to be&#xD;
equalling or crossing the cost estimates of US patent litigations. Doha&#xD;
Declaration has not made affordable access to lifesaving medicines on expected&#xD;
lines. Exemptions and legal provisions enshrined in the Patents Act, 1970 (such&#xD;
as compulsory licence and regulatory exemptions) are also being denied and&#xD;
delayed through protracted litigations burdening the Indian pharma SME sector.&#xD;
Provisions of Section 107A(a) of the Patents Act,1970 are also being ignored by&#xD;
the Indian judiciary. It is, therefore, desirable to look at and evaluate&#xD;
options available to India for improving and facilitating affordable access to&#xD;
lifesaving medicines within the Indian patent legal system. Such options are&#xD;
discussed in this paper.
Page(s): 209-217</summary>
    <dc:date>2014-05-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>

