In a recent judgement by the UK Supreme Court in the case of Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49, the Court held that an “invention” under the purview of Section 7 of the United Kingdom Patent Act, 1977 must be invented by a “human”.
The court unanimously denied a petition from Dr. Stephen Thaler (a US-based developer and founder of the AI system DABUS), who had claimed that DABUS had autonomously created a food or drink container and a light beacon and that he is entitled to rights over its inventions. This decision concludes prolonged legal proceedings that started in 2019 when the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office informed Dr. Stephen Thaler that under the United Kingdom Patent Act, 1977, only a natural person or company could be registered as inventors, not software.
The court, however, did not delve into the fact if DABUS did in fact invent the food container and light. The background of this judgement can be understood when Dr. Stephen Thaler submitted patent applications in 2018 for a food or beverage container as well as a light beacon to draw attention in an emergency. Neither application named a human ‘inventor,’ and no additional document naming a human inventor was ever submitted. The inventorship declarations submitted on mandated forms reflected Dr. Thaler’s conviction that each of the inventions was developed by the AI of a machine named DABUS and that Dr. Thaler had obtained the authority to issue the patents due to his ownership of that machine. However, the IPO concluded in December 2019 that the expert was unable to officially register DABUS as the inventor in patent applications because it was not a person. The decision was upheld by the high court and the court of appeal in July 2020 and July 2021. After a hearing in March, a panel of five supreme court justices have unanimously dismissed Thaler’s case.
Lord Kitchin concurred with Lords Hodge, Hamblen, Leggatt, and Richards that the IPO “was correct to conclude that DABUS is not and was not the inventor of any new product or process described in the patent applications.” The Court ruled that the IPO was correct to determine that Thaler’s patent applications should be considered “withdrawn” under patent rules because “he failed to identify any person or persons whom he believed to be the inventor or inventors of the inventions described in the applications.” The Supreme Court did, however, point out that Thaler’s fixation on DABUS being the inventor was a crucial failing. If Thaler had argued that he was the inventor and that DABUS was only a tool, the court’s decision might have been different, recognizing the basic legality of utilising AI tools in the creative process.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the United Kingdom courts. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world analytic products as they are based only on very limited and dated open-source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of any United Kingdom courts.
Teen eco warrior Greta Thunberg said Wednesday she has registered both her own name and her Fridays For Future global protest movement as trademarks in order to prevent them from being hijacked for fraudulent purposes.
My name and the #FridaysForFuture movement are constantly being used for commercial purposes without any consent whatsoever, the 17-year-old Swede wrote on her Instagram account.
I assure you, I and the other school strikers have absolutely no interests in trademarks. But unfortunately it needs to be done.
She complained that there are still people who are trying to impersonate me or falsely claim that they represent me in order to communicate with high profile people, politicians, media, artists etc.
There had also been instances of marketing, product selling and people collecting money in my and the movements name, she wrote.
That is why Ive applied to register my name, Fridays For Future,… as trademarks. This action is to protect the movement and its activities.
Thunberg, whose protests have attracted millions of young people across the globe, also said she was setting up a non-profit making foundation to handle the financial side of Fridays for Future, such as book royalties, donations and prize money.
She insisted that the foundation would be completely transparent, for example, with regard to the taxes it has to pay.
The foundations aim will be to promote ecological, climatic and social sustainability, as well as mental health, the campaigner wrote.
Thunbergs climate struggle began quietly in August 2018 when she skipped school for the first three weeks, and then on Fridays to spend the day outside Swedens parliament with a sign labelled School strike for climate.
Since then, she has become the face behind the global protest movement, particularly for young people.
Thunberg has also come under ferocious attack from climate changes deniers, who accuse her of being manipulated by a green lobby. (courtesy-Forbes )
This is the great achievement for India is among the top 10 countries for scientific research, according to data released by Elsevier, a publisher of scientific articles and journals. But the papers released by India are the least cited among these top countries, the data shows. Intelligence report, which was compiled earlier this year,
places India in the fifth position for scientific research, while also noting that the country has shown a continuous rise in the past few years. United States in the top spot, with China, Britain and Germany placed above India. Japan, France, Italy, Canada and Australia make up the top 10 in that order.
As per report finalised by collating data from institutions and speaking to academic experts. It is for the years between 2014 and 2017. The publisher maintains a database on research from across the world that is globally accepted. The Indian government uses it as one of the sources to calculate its research rankings.
As per Elsevier report noted that even though the number of publications is high, the citation per publication for India is the least among the top 10 countries. According to the Elsevier data, the number of citations per publication in India is 3. The report states that Britain and Australia have the highest number of citations at
6.1. They are followed by Canada at 6, Germany at 5.9, the US and Italy at 5.8, France at 5.6 and Japan and China at 4.1. The number of citations per publication shows the number of times a research paper has been cited in another research. They indicate the quality of the research. The Indian government, however, feels that this should
not take away from the main findings. “The average citation per paper of 3 is supposed to be very good. Only a few countries are above India in terms of research productivity,” a senior official at the Human Resource Development ministry. “In fact, this is quite credible for a young nation of 70 years. The good thing is it is
rapidly increasing.”
Research dominated by life sciences,
engineering, medicine
Between 2014 and 2017, India produced 5,64,369 publications in various subjects, 16.7 per cent (about 94,249) of which were published in the top journals in the world, the Elsevier report said. There was international collaboration in 16.2 per cent of the total publications, it adds. The most amount of research in this period was carried out in engineering (14.4 per cent), followed by medicine (10.6 per cent) and computer science (10.3 per cent), according to the Elsevier data. The least amount of research in this period was recorded in social sciences (close to 2 per cent), the report said. IISc, Bengaluru, the IITs in Mumbai, Chennai, Kharagpur, Delhi, Roorkee and
Kanpur and the University of Delhi are among the top institutes for research in India, according to the HRD Ministry.
Researchers take issue with metric used
Those working in the field, however, cautioned against reading too much into the report due to the metric used. Aniket Sule, a scientist at the Mumbai-based Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, said that the bulk of the research from India isn’t up to the mark. “Good research, which is happening at the Indian Institute of
Science, the IISERs, IITs, central universities and other institutions, doesn’t form the majority of the research,” Sule said.
“The bulk of the papers are coming from state universities where teachers are publishing just for the sake of it, and 90 per cent of those papers are junk.” Rahul Siddharthan, a computational biologist at the Chennai-based Institute of Mathematical Sciences, questioned the use of citations as a measure of quality. “Research in India is a very complex subject. Using citations as a matrix is problematic because you have to consider many things like what was the reason behind the publication being cited,” Siddharthan said. “Sometimes the research can be very good but not many people have cited it, sometimes the research could be bad but people are citing it because they want to correct it.” ( source the print ).
A big breakthrough in the field of cancer treatment! Kerala’s iconic Sree Chitra
Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST) in
Thiruvananthapuram has won a US patent for developing turmeric-based
curcumin fibrin wafer for cancer treatment! Experts are of the view that this
turmeric-based fibrin wafer is bound to be a game-changer in the field of cancer
treatment.
According to a TOI report, the treatment involves extracting a
molecule from turmeric and directly delivering it to the affected cells. Notably,
the research by Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute was funded by the Indian Council
for Medical Research.
Turmeric, known for its health benefits, has a chemical compound known as
curcumin.
Curcumin can easily be absorbed in the body and has proven
properties to fight cancer, the Times of India report quoted SCTIMST head and
lead researcher, Dr Lissy Krishnan, as saying. The Week cites that for a long
time, researchers have been trying to develop cancer treatment using these
- properties of turmeric, but it has not been possible to look into chemotherapy
using curcumin as the molecule is water-insoluble.In a significant development, SCTIMST research has been focused on
developing a delivery system through which the curcumin could directly be
planted in the affected cells instead of using oral or intravenous methods. This
would enable the molecule to target cancer cells while sparing the healthy cells
in the surrounding.
The delivery system devised by SCTIMST includes processing curcumin to
form a wafer configuration. As per The Week, this wafer would consist of
freeze-dried curcumin and human blood proteins fibrinogen and albumin. When
released in the body tissues, the albumin present in fibrin clot would bind the
albumin receptors to the cancer cells, allowing the entry of curcumin into the
tissue. Meanwhile, the fibrin clot would be broken down as a result of the
body’s natural mechanism, without any harmful effects.
The TOI report has also quoted SCTIMST director Asha Kishore as saying that
the aim is to implant the wafer after surgically removing the cancer tissue, so as
to kill any remaining cancer cells that could cause the disease to reoccur or
spread to other parts. The SCTIMST is now ready for transferring the
technology for further development of curcumin as a cancer treatment, Kishore
said, adding that the US patent would help in boosting the industry’s confidence
in their research.
Get live Stock Prices from BSE and NSE and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual
Funds, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know market’s Top
Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us
on Twitter.( Source Financial Express ) .
Hindustan Unilever (HUL), which owns the brand Pureit, has won a pre-grant opposition against Tata Chemicals, which sells water purifiers under the brand Tata Swach. The patent office rejected Tata Chemicals’ application for an invention related to a water purifier based on the pre-grant opposition filed by HUL.
In 2012, Tata Chemicals was successful at the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in revoking one of HUL’s patents related to water purifier.
In the latest round, Tata Chemicals along with Tata Consultancy Services, had filed a patent application on July 8, 2008, for the invention titled ‘A Water Purifier’. And, HUL filed a pre-grant opposition under the Patents Act 1970 on January 13, 2011.
Based on the argument from both sides and documents submitted by the companies, the assistant controller of patents & designs, Delhi, in an order dated January 2, 2020, held that the claims lack inventive steps under certain sections of the Act.
The controller accepted HUL’s pre-grant representation. The order also observed that the invention is obvious to a person skilled in that particular technology.
Legal sources said that the assistant controller refused Tata Chemicals’ patent application. This was in view of a prior art (information/document already known) which Tata Chemicals depended on to get the HUL’s patent revoked earlier. The patent officer also relied extensively on the observations of the IPAB in the order which rejected the patent of HUL.
IPAB, in its order in 2012, had said that the technology used by Pureit was not new.
“Also, the expert evidence used by Tatas against HUL, in the earlier case, was used to hold the Tata invention as obvious,” said S Majumdar of S Majumdar & Company, who appeared for HUL in the pre-grant opposition. Essenese Obhan, of Obhan & Associates appeared for Tata Chemicals.
Tata Chemicals, in its patent specification filed with the patent office, had said that there is a need for a water purification device that is simple, a gravity-driven one that is inexpensive, easy to use and effective in removing bacterial contamination from drinking water.
The invention claimed by Tata Chemicals include a water purifier which could be connected to a water storage vessel, and having two chambers and purification materials for improved efficacy.
The pre-grant opposition was considered primarily on HUL’s grounds that the invention has prior claiming and lacks inventive step. HUL argued that the features of the alleged invention are present in the documents available.
The patent dispute between the water purifier manufacturers has been going on for several years now. Earlier, another patent of HUL, for ‘a gravity-fed water purification system,’ was revoked by the patent office in 2012. This was done based on a petition filed by Eureka Forbes, part of the Shapoorji Pallonji Group.
According to a report by TechSciResearch, India’s residential water purifier market was valued at $391.4 million in 2019. It is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 13.3 per cent to touch $818 million by 2024. This will be possible owing to the growing concerns on water-borne diseases, increasing water pollution, and rising disposable income. ( source – Business Standards ) .
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday cleared way for January 10 release of Deepika Padukone starrer movie ‘Chhapaak’. The Court, however, kept all contentions of alleged copyright infringement open and to be heard after the release.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice SC Gupte was hearing copyright infringement plea filed by one, Rakesh Bharti seeking interim stay on the release of movie.
The Court said that no can an claim copyright on a story inspired from true events or incidents. Justice Gupte observed,
“Prima facie, it is impossible to grant ad-interim injunction on the facts presented. If your story is equally inspired from theirs which you have derived from common source, in that case you cannot say it is a Copyright infringement.”
Advocate Girish Godbole, on instructions from the plaintiff present in the Court on Wednesday, submitted that he does not wish to press for ad-interim relief to stall the January 10 release.
However, advocate Godbole requested that liberty be granted to press for relief after the movie is released and script is in public domain.
Granting liberty to the plaintiff to raise his contentions later, the Court has asked the parties to file reply if any within four weeks.The plaintiff, Rakesh Bharti had sought perpetual injunction, claiming that he had conceived the idea for a movie, tentatively titled Black Day, which he got registered with the Indian Motion Pictures Producers’ Association in February 2015.
Bharti submitted that the entire story written by the him was based on the life of acid attack survivor, Laxmi Agarwal. Accordingly, he also told the Court that he had taken necessary NOC from Agarwal for the purpose of producing the said film. It was claimed by Bharti that he had an intention to produce Hindi feature film alongwith his son on the basis of same story.
He submitted that he has been working on the script and approaching several artists and producers including Fox Star Studio for narration.
Meghna Gulzar, however opposed the plea, contending that copyright cannot be claimed on true life events. Meghna Gulzar had sought the dismissal of the interim application.
In an affidavit submitted on Tuesday, Gulzar submitted,
“In the present case, the plaintiff (Bharti) has sought the protection of an idea of a film based on the story of an acid attack survivor Laxmi Agarwal…True facts and events are not entitled to copyright protection.”
It was further contended,
“The suit was wholly misconceived, frivolous, legally untenable and unmeritorious…I submit that plaintiff has not conducted himself in a bonafide manner. Moreover, the suit has been filed with ulterior motives to gain undue publicity and to obstruct and delay the release of the film called Chhapaak.”
The affidavit was filed by Meghna Gulzar through advocates Ameet Naik and Madhu Gadodia of Naik Naik and Company.
It was submitted on Tuesday that script of the film Chhapaak is original and is based on the life of an acid attack survivor.
Counsels of the defendant Film Director argued,
Meghna Gulzar the co-writer and director of the film, had obtained the necessary rights and developed a story and screenplay which was unique and original and based on the research and interviews conducted by her and her team.
Meghna Gulzar added that plaintiff’s conduct is demonstrative of gross, inordinate and unexplained delay and laches, on which could alone the plaint ought to be dismissed. Advocate Birendra Saraf appeared for Gulzar.
The Court has posted the matter for further hearing after six weeks. ( source – barandbench)
As per Section 52 of the Copyright Act ,1957 provides for various acts which do not amount to infringement of Copyright like fair comment, use as part of reporting on current news etc.
GOI said in Rajya Sabha on Friday said it is trying to set up a fully computerized intellectual property rights (IPR) office in the country which is similar to the US model where everything is done online.
Responding during Question Hour, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said the government has brought a lot of “sanity” to the working of eight areas of IPR, be it patent, copyright or trademark. “All of these are synergised into one office now. We are in the process of computerizing every process so that people don’t have to go to any IPR office whatsoever,” he said.
In the whole of the US, there is one IPR office and everybody works online, he said, and added, “I am trying to develop that module here.” With smartphones proliferating all over India, the government wants to ensure rural artisans and craftsmen engage directly online through video conferencing and get advise on patent related issues free of cost, he said.
The government has already reduced charges significantly for start-ups, artisans and women entrepreneurs, he added. On protection of traditional knowledge under India’s IPR policy, Goyal said it is not only related to traditional medicine but also traditional cultural expression.
An initial study has been conducted to get a feel of what a road map on this issue should be, he said, and added that the government is now in the process of working out a much more detailed analysis and prepare a road map forward.
On government’s efforts to protect traditional knowledge, the minister said 3.6 lakh formulation which were part of traditional knowledge have now been made available to 13 patent offices across the world.
“Due to which, we were able to save about 236 cases which otherwise would have got patented somewhere else. They were able to deny the patent in different geographies because of our effort to make the world aware that India has lot of traditional knowledge,” he added.
The minister also assured the BJD member that the government will consider protecting “traditional culture” in the IPR policy. The government is very committed that rural India is engaged with the world when it comes to the country’s traditional knowledge he added. (Source TOI).
The government on Friday allotted Geographical Indication (GI) tags to four new products from the states of Tamil Nadu, Mizoram and Kerala.
GI is an indication used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess the qualities or reputation that are due to that origin. The Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) recently registered GIs for c, Tawlhlohpuan and Mizo Puanchei from Mizoram and and Tirur Betel leaf from Kerala, a government statement said on Friday.
Palani Panchamirtham, a ‘prasadam’ or religious offering in temples has been allotted a GI, in a first. Tawlhlohpuan, is a fine quality fabric woven in Mizoram, while Mizo Puanchei, essentially a shawl, is considered the most colourful textile in the northeastern state. Tirur betel vine, cultivated in Malappuram district of Kerala, is valued for its medicinal and cultural usages.
“GI products can benefit the rural economy in remote areas, by supplementing the incomes of artisans, farmers, weavers and craftsmen. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade is actively involved in promotion and marketing of GIs,” the press statement said.
Recently, a long-drawn tussle between West Bengal and Odisha was resolved after latter secured a GI tag for its own variant of rasgulla.
Adidas has garnered itself a reputation for being particularly litigious when it comes to its famed three-stripe trademark, and it is proving just as unwelcoming of plays in its brand name as well. The German sportswear giant does not sell products for pets with its name on them, and it does not want you to either. That was the general takeaway when adidas initiated a trademark fight before the Japan Patent Office (JPO) early this year, asking the national intellectual property body to cancel a pending trademark application for the word adidog for use on clothing for dogs.
In its opposition filing in January, as first reported by Osaka-based attorney Masaki Mikami, adidas pointed to Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law, which prohibits the registration of a trademark that is likely to cause confusion amongst consumers as to the source of products bearing the mark, in furtherance of its effort to have the pending adidog application tossed out. Adidas claimed that due to the high degree of similarity between its famous, trademark protected-name and the adidog mark, consumers would be likely to think that it was affiliated with or otherwise endorsed the use of the adidog mark when that is not the case.
Adidas asserted that such consumer confusion would be bolstered due to the significant level of consumer awareness in connection with the adidas brand across the globe due to adidas consistent and exclusive use of its trademark-protected name in Japan for nearly 50 years, as well as the close relatedness/proximity of goods in question, and the JPO agreed, thereby, dismissing the adidog application.
Siding with adidas, the JPOs Opposition Board held that it is unquestionable that trade name adidas has acquired a remarkable degree of reputation [in Japan] well before the filing date of opposed mark as a result of continuous use on sportswear and marketing activities in Japan since 1971. The trademark body further stated that not only is the adidog mark similar to adidas [in] appearance and sound, the products that are being offered using the adidog name is not markedly different from the products adidas sells.
Clothing for pets is one [type] of fashion item consumed by the general public. Sportswear is also consumed by the general public not only for exercise use but also fashion items, the Opposition Board stated. With that in mind, It becomes apparent that distributors of sports gears, apparels, bags, and shoes also deal with clothing for pets nowadays, meaning that both types of goods shall be closely related.
Adidas win comes after it initiated a separate proceeding against adidog last year when the Japanese company filed to register a trademark consisting of three diagonal parallel dog bones. The sportswear giant similarly prevailed in that matter on almost exactly the same grounds, namely, that adidas maintains famous trademarks in Japan, the three bones design visually resembles adidas three-stripe trademark, and modern distributors of sportswear, apparel, footwear, and accessories also commonly deal in pet clothing and accessories, as well.
The win for adidas comes shortly after Balenciaga initiated a trademark fight over a petwear companys Pawlenciaga application for registration, and in the midst of menswear site Hypebeast filing suit against an unrelated dog-centric company called Hypebeast Pets
For promotion and encouraging innovation an invention for the MSME and Startup , Govt. of India specially launched the scheme on 16-09-2019 . an reduce the fees for different activities for registration of the Patent , Design & Geographical Induction.
Fees for Patent registration for MSME Govt. Fees reduce by 60 – 80 % , Design Registration fees is reduced up today 50 % .
For Geographical Induction for MSME , Govt. of India reduced fees by the 100% , other side the GI rights are community Right which is not available for individual .
As per Govt. Records the filling of trade mark registration form 2013– 2014 to 2018-2019 increase by the 69 % and the Patent filling increase by 18 % .
