Kim Wheeler

Yacine

Hi Prashant,Have been travelling, hence the dayeled response. You raised the issue of redundancy even in the comments to the last post, to which I did point out that Sections 48 and 107A(b) serve two different purposes. As for examples to support this, Sneha pointed out that my example could remain valid despite the presence of Section 90, because Section 90 prevents import only by the compulsory licensee, but does not prevent import by a third party from the compulsory licensee. Would this hypothetical suffice?As for your point that my comparison of the un-amended and amended versions of the provision destroys all my earlier examples, I'll explain it further just so that we are clear about our respective positions. There is a difference between permitted by law , permitted by the law , authorised by the law and authorised under the law . Authorized by the law requires and restricts itself to authorization by a particular statute, whereas authorization under the law does not exclude the patentee's right to authorize production and sale or distribution, it merely anoints him as just of the authorities entitles to authorize production and sale or distribution. So the patentee may still contractually authorize production and sale or distribution. On parallel imports, since the scope of parallel importation is left for individual nations to circumscribe, how would absence of a similar precedent take away from the plausibility of India choosing to define it in a limited manner?Bests,Sai.

Was this review helpful to you?   Rating [ 2.40 ]

0     0       Inappropriate comment