Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
Journals
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
, Prashant
- A Review on Biocompatible Hydrogel: Formulation Aspect and Evaluation
Abstract Views :502 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Shubham Tripathi
1,
Somnath Patel
1,
Ritesh Patel
1,
Shraddha
1,
Pushpendra
1,
Sachin
1,
Neetish
1,
Mahendra
1,
Kuldeep
1,
Prashant
1,
Rajesh Patel
1,
Girish
1,
Nitin
1,
Tomanlal
1,
Amrita Thakur
1,
Mukta Agrawal
1,
Ajazuddin
1,
D. K. Tripathi
1,
Amit Alexander
1
Affiliations
1 Rungta College of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Kohka-Kurud Road, Bhilai - 490024, Chhattisgarh, IN
1 Rungta College of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Kohka-Kurud Road, Bhilai - 490024, Chhattisgarh, IN
Source
Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Dosage Form and Technology, Vol 10, No 2 (2018), Pagination: 119-122Abstract
Many predefined ways are now a day adopted to interface with biological tissues. One such significant class of biomaterials are hydrogels, which are defined as highly hydrated materials. Hydrogels are designed to absorb a large amount of water or biological fluids due to its three-dimensional, hydrophilic, polymeric network. They closely simulate natural living tissue, more so than any other class of synthetic biomaterials because of their high-water content, porosity,and soft consistency.They are chemically stable but may degrade and gradually disintegrate up to dissolve. Now a day they become more popular because of their unique property of flexibility and biocompatibility. Hydrogels can be produced by both natural and synthetic polymers. These polymers undergo physical and chemical cross-linking to produce hydrogels. Due to their resemblance to the living tissue, they have the immense possibility to use hydrogels in the biomedical field. Some of the well-known use of hydrogels include manufacturing contact lenses, hygiene products, tissue engineering scaffolds, drug delivery system and wound dressings. The current review article deals with information about the hydrogels, their various types, preparation methods along with an evaluation of the same.Also, the present study is performed for the motivation of the graduates towards publication and research. Hence, we have encouraged the graduates to prepare an informative article on the present subject.Keywords
Hydrogel, Polymeric Network, Porosity, Biocompatibility, Biomedical.
References
- Caló E, Khutoryanskiy VV.Biomedical Applications Of Hydrogels: A Review Of Patents And Commercial Products, European Polymer Journal. 2015; 65: 252-267.
- Das N. Preparation Methods And Properties Of Hydrogels: A Review. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2013; 5(3): 112-117.
- Hoare TR, Kohane DS. Hydrogels In Drug Delivery: Progress And Challenges. Polymer. 2008; 49(8): 1993-2007.
- Phadke A, Zhang C, Arman B, ChengChih Hsu, Mashelkar R. Lele A, Tauber M, Arya G,andVarghese S.Rapid Self-Healing Hydrogels.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012; 109: 4383-4388.
- Dwivedi S, Khatri P, Mehra GR,Kumar V. Hydrogel-A Conceptual Overview. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Archives. 2011; 2(6): 1588-1597.
- Ahmed EM. Hydrogel: Preparation, Characterization And Applications. Journal of advanced research. 2015; 6(2): 105-121.
- Iizawa T, Taketa H, Maruta M, Ishido T, Gotoh T, Sakohara S. Synthesis of porous poly (N-isopropylacrylamide) gel beads by sedimentation polymerization and their morphology. Journal of applied polymer. 2007; 104: 842-850.
- Singh SK, Dhyani A,Juyal D. Hydrogel: Preparation, Characterization And Applications. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2017; 6(6): 25-32.
- Himi M, Maurya SD, Preparation and Evaluation Of Stomach Specific IPN Hydrogels For Oral Drug Delivery: A Review. Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics. 2013, 3(2), 131-140.
- Swarbrick J, Encyclopedia Of Pharmaceutics, 4th edition,Vol III, F-O, 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite300, Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742, Taylor and Francis Group,, 2013.
- Bindu M, Ashok. V, Chatterjee A. Review Article As A Review On Hydrogels As Drug Delivery In The Pharmaceutical Field. International Journal of pharm and chemical sciences ISSN: 2277: 5005: 642-661.
- Aulton M., Aulton’s pharmaceutics, The Design and Manufacture of Medicines, Third Edition, Elsevier’s Health Sciences Rights Department, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1800, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2899, Harcourt Publishers Limited 2001.
- Chien Y. Novel drug delivery systems. second edition, New York, 52 Vanderbuilt Avenue, Informa Healthcare USA, Inc, 2009.
- Design of embankment for high concentration ash slurry filling in opencast mines – a case study.
Abstract Views :77 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Scientists, CSIR–Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad 826 015., IN
2 Senior Project Fellow, CSIR–Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad 826 015., IN
1 Scientists, CSIR–Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad 826 015., IN
2 Senior Project Fellow, CSIR–Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad 826 015., IN
Source
Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, Vol 64, No 9 (2016), Pagination: 84-88Abstract
Disposal of coal ash on surface comes as a part and package for meeting the society needs for thermal power. The conventional method of disposing it in ash ponds leads to requirement of more than 3 lakh acres of valuable land for its construction and can have damaging consequences with respect to water, air and land pollution. Hence, the need of the hour is to utilize this ash in an environment friendly manner. This paper throws light on the scheme for high concentration slurry disposal of ash in abandoned portion of the mine and design of embankment to contain it against the highwall. Two most common method for embankment construction, viz. upstream and downstream was modelled to evaluate its factor of safety with the help of PLAXIS software. Downstream method of embankment construction showed promising results and was selected for further analysis. Numerical simulation was carried out with downstream mode of construction in drained condition with and without the incorporation of vertical and horizontal drains. The embankment with drains exhibited higher safety factor which decreased when the embankment was raised. The construction scheme involves raising of embankment with slope angle of 270 in eight stages of ten meters height each and filling it with high concentration ash in layers. In the final stage, the top soil of 5m thick is proposed to be spread for revegetation.References
- Report on fly ash generation at coal/lignite based thermal power stations and its utilization in the country for the year 2014-15; CEA.
- Craig, H., Hans-Joachim, F. and Anne, W. (2013): "Coal Combustion Products: a Global Perspective", 2013 World Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, April 22-25, 2013 held at Lexington, KY, USA.
- Indian Standard, IS: 2720 (Part V): 1965.
- Indian Standard, IS 2720:Part7, 1985.
- Plaxis Software User Manual.
- From ‘Anti Suit Injunction’ to ‘Anti Anti Suit Injunction’, Where would this Journey End? Part-I
Abstract Views :64 |
PDF Views:72
Authors
Ashwini Siwal
1,
Prashant
1
Affiliations
1 Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, India., IN
1 Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, India., IN
Source
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol 28, No 1 (2023), Pagination: 42-45Abstract
Right to seek justice is the most basic tenet of human life, but what if this right to seek justice is desisted by courts of justice itself? Yes, this crudestatement with other paraphernalia insinuates a concept known as‘Anti Suit Injunction’, (ASI) by virtue of which a court restrains a party from prosecuting and/or instituting a suit between same parties, in any other court of law. But certainly that’s not where things terminate! To cease the conflicting judgments emanating from various jurisdictions and for amicable resolution of disputes by one court only, a relatively novel concept of ‘Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction’(A2SI), with a primary intent ofreversing the efficacy of ASI by preventing the other party to take shed under ASI, has took the centre stage. As the functioning of both ASI and A2SI is not in coherence with the basic notions of international law along with some coordinative rules, so the appropriateness of them as a remedy is vastly questionable.
These remedies have recently surfaced into the domain of ‘Standard Essential Patents’ (SEP), leaving the parties to the dispute concerning SEP licensing (which are global in effect, aslegal actions centering on identical patents or related issues are often taken in parallel and multiple jurisdictions 1 ) in legal chaos as to which court of law will hear them.
What motivated the authors to usher into this domain is the topical, contemporaneous nature along with increase in its relevance in its confrontation with the SEPs, the same itself being a highly contemporary and ever evolving domain of patenting landscape. With the ever advancement of technology, this field is highly debated and is being pondered over in various sectors including academics! The present paper is a part of the ongoing research, to give a thorough discourse through a series of articles spanning across the year in upcoming volumes of this journal. The current and first installment of this yearlong series would try to apprise the readers towards this multidimensional issue of A2SI with its confrontation with SEPs with the subsequent issue briefing the global scenarios and way forward concerning this issue of A2SI. The latter part of this yearlong series would then try to provide a fundamentaloverview of SEPs from the very scratch itself to satiate the questions so raised by the former issues amongst the mind of readers.
Keywords
SEPs, Anti-Suit Injunctions, Anti- Anti-Suit Injunctions, Comity, FRANDS.Full Text
References
- Bonadio E & McDonagh L, Paris court grants an SEP anti-anti-suit injunction in IPComv Lenovo:A worrying decision in uncertain times? JoIPL & P, 15 (2020) 149.
- Baron J & Spulber D, Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organisations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 27 (2018) 462. (Discovering that 32 of the 37 examined SDOs provide FRAND license).
- ETSI, ‘Intellectual Property Rights Policy’ (14 April 2021), Clause 3 (“The ETSI IPR Policy aims to strike a compromise between the owners' rights and the requirements of standardization for public usage in the sector of telecommunications).
- For understanding licensing of SEPs refer, Nikolic I, ‘Licensing Standard Essential Patents: FRAND and the Internet of Things’, Bloomsbury Publishing2021; Chryssoula Pentheroudakis, Baron J, Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases, Publication Office of the European Union,2017.
- Spulber D, Licensing StandardEssential Patents with FRAND Commitments: Preparing for 5G Mobile Telecommunications, Colorado Technology Law Journal,18 (2020) 79.
- Igor N, Global Standard Essential Patent Litigation: Anti-Suit and Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. 2022/10, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4071708 (28 November 2022).
- Klos M, Ericsson sues Samsung for patent infringement in Europe, Juve Patent,(8 January 2021), https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/ericsson-sues-samsung-for-patent-infringement-in-europe/ (20 October 2022).
- HTC vEricsson 12 F.4th 476 (5th Cir 2021); Optis v Huawei WL 1244707 (E.D. Tex. 2019).
- Cremers K et. al., Patent Litigation in Europe, European Journal of Law and Economics, 44 (2017) 1; European Patent Academy, Declarations of Non-Infringement and Compulsory Licences, https://e-courses.epo.org/wbts_int/litigation/Non Infringement.pdf; European Patent Academy, ‘Proceedings for Invalidity’ available athttps://e-courses.epo.org/wbts_int/ litigation/ProcInvalidity.pdf (20 October 2022).
- In both the US and the UK, this seems to be the generally held view, Refer Unwired Planet vHuawei [2017] EWHC 2988 (Pat); Microsoft vMotorola, 854 F.Supp.2d 993 (W.D. Wash. 2012). On the other hand, it appears that German courts only view FRAND commitments as declarative in nature and are yet to acknowledge them as establishing a legally enforceable agreement for the benefit of other parties. IP Com vDeutsche Telekom & Vodafone, Regional Court of Dusseldorf, 4b O 274/10 (24 April 2012).
- Shurn P, Using declaratory judgments offensively in patent cases, John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property La,3 (2003) 1.
- Or enforcing a judgment obtained in foreign proceedings.
- Raack D W, A history of injunctions in England before 1700, Indiana Law Journal, 61 539 (1986) 545-56.
- Toulson L J, Deutsche Bank AG vHighland Crusader Offshore Partners LP [2010] 1 WLR 1023, Paragraph 50 (An anti-suit injunction always requires caution because by definition it involves interference with the process or potential process of a foreign court).
- For identical provisions under US law, Laker Airways, Ltd. v Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
- Interditial Technology vXiaomi Corporation & Ors (2021) SCC (Del).
- From ‘Anti-Suit Injunction’ to ‘Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction’, Where would this Journey End? Part -II
Abstract Views :68 |
PDF Views:79
Authors
Ashwini Siwal
1,
Prashant
1
Affiliations
1 Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, India., IN
1 Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, India., IN
Source
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol 28, No 2 (2023), Pagination: 143-150Abstract
While courts have traditionally been mindfulof the territorial nature of patent rights and thus reluctant to exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, this second installment of the yearlong series, inter alia will try to examine certain global scenarios and conditions that courts consider while granting ASI and A2SI and their application in disputes concerning SEPs, further certain measures would be suggested which the authors think might come handy to stop this global race for jurisdiction and how inculcating the same in practice would give the due respect to the national courts of concerned jurisdiction along with incentivizing the parties to focus on key concern issues behind every SEP dispute i.e. the suitable FRAND licensing terms. The present research will also try to convince that such ‘Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti……….Suits Injunction’ saga benefits none, as the same incentivizes a global race to find a courtin favorable jurisdiction rather than focusing over the Licensing Negotiations.Keywords
SEPs, Anti-Suit Injunctions, Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions, Comity, FRANDS.Full Text
References
- Airbus Industrie GIE vPatel [1999] 1 AC 119, As per Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, a court may grant an ASI “in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so”.
- Airbus Industrie GIE vPatel [1999] 1 AC 119, per Lord Goff. Be aware that English national law makes it extremely simple to invoke jurisdiction in foreign conflicts. The adjudicatory discretion acknowledged by English law serves as a counterweight to this.
- Be aware that English national law makes it extremely simple to invoke jurisdiction in foreign conflicts. The adjudicatory discretion acknowledged by English law serves as a counterweight to this. Donohue vArmco Inc and Others [2001] UKHL 64.
- Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC vAES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP [2013] UKSC 35.
- Furthermore, the English courts have in rare circumstances granted an ASI to shield the applicant from overseas prosecutions that would otherwise be "oppressive" and where it would be unfair to expect the applicant to defend itself before the foreign court. This might be the situation when the petitioner is denied access to justice due to the foreign court's procedure as in, Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v (1)Lee Kui Jak (2)Yong Joon Kim and (3)Lee Kui Jak [1987] UKPC 12.
- Masri vConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 625.
- Bank of Tokyo Ltd vKaroon [1985] AC 45.
- Star Reefers Pool Inc. vJFC Group Co. Ltd. [2012] EWCA Civ 14, Paragraph 27, referring to Toulson L J in Deutsche Bank AG vHighland Crusader Offshore Partners LP [2010] 1 WLR 1023, paragraph 50. If it is "clear" that the case before the foreign court is "bound to fail," it may also be possible in some (exceptional) instances to prove the parallel proceedings' illegality.
- Airbus Industrie GIE vPatel [1999] 1 AC 119.
- The concept of comity, for instance, is less important in matters involving violation of contract (jurisdiction or arbitration agreement).
- Fingas J, India is now a larger smart phone market than the US, 26 January 2020, Engadget, https://www.engadget.com/ 2020-01-25-india-now-second-largest-smartphone-market.html (accessed on1 September 2022).
- Refer, Laker Airways, Ltd. vSabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 926-27 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (holding that “parallel proceedings on the same in personam claim should ordinarily be allowed to proceed simultaneously, at least until judgment is reached in one which can be pled as res judicata in the other”).
- E. & J. Gallo Winery vAndina Licores S.A., 446 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2006).
- Microsoft Corp. vMotorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) at 882.
- Microsoft Corp. vMotorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) holding that the issues in (1) a patent infringement action in Germany and (2) an action before the US court for breach of contract with respect to the SEP holder’s FRAND commitment were identical. The Ninth Circuit stated that the US litigation would determine the outcome of the German action since the SEP holder would be unable to seek an injunction against the implementer if the license offer was not deemed RAND.
- Refer Quaak vKlynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, 361 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2004).
- This can be the situation if the foreign action violates an arbitration or jurisdictional agreement, Refer, E. J. Gallo Winery vAndina Licores S.A, 446 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2006); Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda. vGE Medical Systems Information Technologies, Inc., 369 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2004) at 653-655.
- Compare e.g., Kaepa, Inc. vAchilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 1996) (“We decline […] to require a district court to genuflect before a vague and omnipotent notion of comity every time that it must decide whether to enjoin a foreign action”) with Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927 (Comity dictates that foreign antisuit injunctions be issued sparingly and only in the rarest of cases).
- Refer, Kaepa, Inc. vAchilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 1996) (noting that an international anti-suit injunction does not “actually threaten relations” between the two involved nations).
- Raphael T, The Anti-Suit Injunction, (2nd edition, Oxford University Press 2019) 1, 2 (“An anti-suit injunction is an order of the court requiring the injunction defendant not to commence, or to cease to pursue, or not to advance particular claims within, or take steps to terminate or suspend, court or arbitration proceedings in a foreign country…”); Bermann G, The use of Anti-Suit injunctions in international litigation, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 28 (1990) 589; Fisher G, Anti-Suit injunctions to restrain foreign proceedings in Breach of an Arbitration Agreement, Bond Law Review22 (2010) 1.
- Raphael T, The Anti-Suit Injunction (2nd edition, Oxford University Press 2019) 37.
- Ojigbe C, From West Tankers to Gazprom: Anti-Suit Injunctions, Arbitral Anti-Suit Order and the Brussels I Recast, Journal of Private International Law, 11 (2015) 267.
- Strong S I, Anti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United States, American Journal of Comparative Law, 66 (2018) 153, 165,166.
- UK Senior Courts Act 1981, Article 37(1).
- Raphael T, The Anti-Suit Injunction (2nd edition, Oxford University Press 2019) 3; Gee S, Lord Bigham, Anti-Suit Injunctions and Arbitration, (Oxford University Press 2009).
- Refer Agbaje vAkkinoye-Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13, 51-54.
- Highland Crusader Partners vDeutsche Bank [2009] EWCA Civ 725, para 50.
- Strong S I, Anti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United States, American Journal of Comparative Law, 66 (2018) 153, 159-161; Contreras J & Eixenberger M, The Anti-Suit Injunction – A Transnational Remedy for Multi-Jurisdictional SEP Litigation in Jorge Contreras (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Competition, Antitrust and Patents (Cambridge University Press 2018) 453-454; Fry T, Injunction junction, What’s your function – Resolving the split over Antisuit injunction deference in favor of international comity, Catholic University Law Review, 58 (2009) 1071; Tan D, Anti-Suit Injunctions and the vexing problem of Comity, Virginia Journal of International Law 45 (2004) 283.
- Strong S I, Anti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United States, American Journal of Comparative Law, 66 (2018) 153, 159.
- The US Supreme Court described the comity concept as “the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens, or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws”; Hilton vGuyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1895); Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale vUS Dist Ct SD Iowa, 482 US 522, 543 (1987) (“the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal approaches the resolution of cases touching the laws and interests of other sovereign states”).
- Raphael T, The Anti-Suit Injunction (2nd edition, Oxford University Press 2019) 142-144.
- Bermann G, The use of Anti-Suit injunctions in international litigation, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 28 (1990) 589.
- Strong S I, Anti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United States, American Journal of Comparative Law, 66 (2018) 153, 169.
- Contreras J & Eixenberger M, The Anti-Suit Injunction – A Transnational Remedy for Multi-Jurisdictional SEP Litigation in Jorge Contreras (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Competition, Antitrust and Patents (Cambridge University Press 2018) 452.
- Raphael T, The Anti-Suit Injunction (2nd edition, Oxford University Press 2019) 139-141.
- Marfé M, The future of standard essential patent licensing, pinsentmasons, (9 March 2021) https://www.pinsentmasons. com/out-law/analysis/the-future-of-standard-essential-patent-licensing (accessed on 1 September 2022).
- Highland Crusader Partners vDeutsche Bank v [2009] EWCA Civ 725, para 50.
- IP Bridge vHuawei, Munich Regional Court, Case No. 7 0 36/21 (24th June 2021) para 43 (arguing that because AEIs are aimed against court rulings that have found both violation and the viability of a claim for injunctive relief, they have an even greater negative impact on comity and the SEP owner's ability to access justice than ASIs).
- Huawei vZTE ECLI:EU:C:2015:477, The Huawei vZTE, following actions are included in the framework: 1) Prior to asking for an injunction, the SEP holder must notify the implementer, inform them of the infringement, and specify which specific SEPs are being violated and how, 2) the infringer should indicate that it is ready to sign the license agreement, 3) The SEP holder should next submit a precise, written offer for a licence under FRAND terms, indicating in particular the quantum of the royalty and how it is to be calculated. The infringer must then diligently and in good faith react to the offer, without using any delay strategies. 4) If the infringer declines, it must submit its FRAND counter- offer promptly and in writing; 5) if the SEP holder refuses to accept the counter-offer, the infringer will have to provide adequate protection (for instance, by offering a bank guarantee or putting the required sums on deposit) and render accounts; 6) at that point, the parties may mutually agree to request that the FRAND royalty be scertained by an independent third party (presumably court or arbitration).
- Commission ‘Setting Out the EU Approach to Standard Essential Patents’ COM (2017) 712 final 11; Japan Patent Office, Guide to Licensing Negotiations Involving Standard Essential Patents, (2018) 19-20.
- Contreras J & D Newman, Developing a framework for arbitrating Standard-Essential Patent disputes, Journal of Dispute Resolution, 23 (1) (2014).
- Lemley M & Shapiro C, A simple approach to setting reasonable royalties for Standard-Essential Patents, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 28 (2013) 1135.
- WIPO, Guidance on WIPO FRAND Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2017.
- Geradin D, FRAND arbitration: The determination of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates for SEPs by Arbitral Tribunals, CPI Antitrust Chronicle,2016.
- An Introduction to Standard Essential Patents Part –III
Abstract Views :93 |
PDF Views:75
Authors
Prashant
1,
Ashwini Siwal
1
Affiliations
1 Faculty of Law,University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, India., IN
1 Faculty of Law,University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, India., IN
Source
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol 28, No 3 (2023), Pagination: 231-235Abstract
The modern world is increasingly getting interactive with holistic inter-connectedness; the same is made possible by virtue of standards which in turn sometimesare based on patented technologies. A laptop for instance must have to meet a humongous number of standards and hence requires a patented technology in doing so. But just like the builder doesn’t manufacture bricks on its own, he rather purchases them, so is the case with technological building blocks for any product. These aforesaid patented technological building blocks are the ones that are often termed/ categorized as ‘Standard Essential Patents’.
What motivated us as student of IP laws to usher this domain is the topical and contemporaneous nature along with increase in relevance of this technical domain of patent law. With the ever advancement of technology, this field is highly debated and is being worked upon in various sectors including academics! We being a part of academics and are engaged into the research of this topic would try to give a thorough discourse through a series of articles spanning across upcoming volumes of this journal. This third installment of yearlong series provides a fundamental overview of SEPs. It explains the concept of SEPs, their role in the patent system, and their importance inthe innovation process. It also examines the various types of SEPs, the different licensing models, and the current challenges posed by SEPs. Finally, the article provides an overview of the current legal landscape surrounding SEPs. The article provides a comprehensive introduction to SEPs and their implications in the modernintellectual property landscape.
Keywords
Standard Essential Patents, Standard Setting Organizations, F/RAND, ASI, Bureau of Indian Standards, ETSI.Full Text
References
- Pai Y, The rational basis for FRANDly Courts denying injunctive relief for SEPs infringement, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2014) 146.
- Baron J & Spulber D, Technology standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 27 (2018) 462.
- Pai Y, Standard Essential Patens: Prolegomena, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2014) 61.
- Pai Y, Comments on DIPP Discussion Paper on SEPs and their Availability on FRAND Terms, NLUD Student Law Journal, 4 (2017) 115.
- Pai Y, Standard Essential Patens: Prolegomena, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2014) 63.
- Department of Justice, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology, Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject To Voluntary F/RAND Commitment. www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1228016/download (accessed on 13 September 2022).
- http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/News/196_1_ standard%20EssentialPaper_01March2016_1_.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2022).
- Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council And The European Economic And Social Committee: Setting Out The EU Approach To Standard Essential Patents' (European Commission 2017), https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/26583/attachments /1/translations/en/renditions/native (14 July 2022).
- Pai Y, The rational basis for FRANDly Courts denying injunctive relief for SEPs infringement, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights,19 (2014) 147.
- https://www.kashishipr.com/blog/standard-essential-patents-and-the-problem-of-regulating-royalties/#:~:text=In%20concise%20terms%2C%20SEPs%2 0or,for%20a%20product%20or%20process (accessed on 29 July 2022).
- Wright J, SSOs, FRAND, and Antitrust: Lessons from the economics of incomplete contracts, George Mason Law Review, 21 (2014) 791.
- The Indian Patents Act, 1970, Act (39 of 1970).
- Tsai J & Wright J, Standard setting, intellectual property rights, and the role of Antitrust in regulating incomplete contracts, Antitrust Law Journal, 80 (2014) 157.
- Chuffart-Finsterwald S, Patent markets: An opportunity for technology diffusion and F/RAND licensing, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 18 (2019) 339.
- Chuffart-Finsterwald S, Patent markets: An opportunity for technology diffusion and F/RAND licensing, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 18 (2019) 340.
- Pai Y & Daryanani N, Patents and Competition Law in India: CCI’s reductionist approach in evaluating Competitive Harm, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 5 (2017) 299.
- https://www.studiotorta.com/en/editorials/standard-essential-patents/ (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Teece D, Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world, Research Policy, 47 (2018)1367.
- Pai Y & Daryanani N, Patents and Competition Law in India: CCI’s reductionist approach in evaluating Competitive Harm, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 5 (2017) 300.
- Layne-Farrar A, Standards Development Organizations as two-sided markets, CPI Antitrust Chronicle, 2018, 1.
- Maldonado K, Breaching RAND and reaching for reasonable: Microsoftv MotorolaAnd Standard-Essential Patent Litigation, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2014, 419.
- Sidak G, What makes FRAND fair? The just price contract formation, and the division of surplus from voluntary exchange, Criterion Journal of Innovation, 4 (2019) 729-731.
- https://singhania.in/blog/standard-essential-patents (accessed on 3 July 2022).
- The SEPs Debate and Surrounding Issues: Part -IV
Abstract Views :105 |
PDF Views:76
Authors
Affiliations
1 Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, Delhi, IN
2 West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Salt Lake City — 700 106, Kolkata, IN
1 Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, Delhi, IN
2 West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Salt Lake City — 700 106, Kolkata, IN
Source
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol 28, No 4 (2023), Pagination: 323-333Abstract
The domain of SEPs is highly engrossed with multitude of issues, as it is generally understood. Most of the issues come from patent holders' anti-competitive behavior, which includes unilateral rejection to license, patent ambushes, patent hold-ups, strategic injunctive relief, royalty staking, and breach of F/RAND Commitments, both inside and outside of SSOs (national & international). One of the key tenets of standards is that they be universally recognized and applied once they have been approved. Suppliers view standards as a way to meet consumer needs while also offering a chance to pave the way for innovation through compatibility, complementarily and interoperability. Standards thus have an impact on both innovation and the dissemination of technology since they create a technological infrastructure with a significant public benefit component. The previous article provided the readers with a comprehensive introduction to SEPs and their implications in the modern intellectual property landscape. This issue of this yearlong series will take the baton further to dwell on the issues circumventing around this domain of SEPs.Keywords
SEP, SSO, F/RAND, ASI, BIS, ETSI.Full Text
References
- ILO, Non-Standard Employment around World, Understanding the Challenges and Shaping Prospects, Geneva (2016).
- Pılena A & Mežinska I, Standardization as catalyst for open & responsible innovation, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2017, 187.
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-contracts-notes/ (accessed on 2 June 2022).
- Yogesh P, Standard Essential Patens: Prolegomena, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2014) 59.
- Geradin D, Pricing abuses by essential patent holders in standard-setting context: View from Europe, Antitrust Law Journal, 76 (2009) 329.
- Bharadwaj A, Devaiah V H & Gupta I, Multi-dimensional Approaches Towards New Technology, Springer Open, 2018.
- Emeterio M, Antitrust deterrence of patent holdup: Refocusing on competition as a driver of technological innovation, UC Irvine Law Review, 2022, 12.
- https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-621-1358?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&fir stPage=true (accessed on 29 June 2022).
- Chien C, 'Holding Up' & 'Holding Out', Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 2014, 21.
- Dornis T W, SEP & F/RAND Licensing-At crossroads of economic theory & legal practice, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 2020.
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (accessed on 25 June 2022).
- Micromax v Ericsson, Case No. 50/2013, Competition Commission of India, 12 November 2013.
- https://voxeu.org/article/licensing-standard-essential-patents (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Epstein R A & Noroozi K B, Why incentives for "Patent Holdout" threaten to dismantle F/RAND, and why it matters, University of Chicago Law School Chicago, 2017.
- Simcoe T, Graham S & Feldman M, 'Competing on standards? Entrepreneurship, intellectual property, and platform, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18 (2009) 775.
- Sidak J, What aggregate royalty do manufacturers of mobile phones pay to license Standard-Essential Patents? The Criterion Journal on Innovation, 1 (2016) 701.
- No.13-1489 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
- https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/11/17/F/RAND-royalty-base-statements-and-cellular-wireless-standard-essential-patents-part-iii/id=127397/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
- Ericsson v Micromax, CS(OS) 442/2013, 12 November 2014.
- Galetovicy A & Guptaz K, Royalty stacking and Standard Essential Patents: Theory and evidence from the world mobile wireless industry, June 2016.
- CRS Report for Congress, Availability of Injunctive Relief for Standard-Essential Patent Holders, 2013.
- Sidak J, Is a FRAND royalty a point or a range? Criterion Journal on Innovation, 2 (2017) 401.
- https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2015/03/article_0003.html (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Justus B, Technology Standards & Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to Searle Center Database, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 2018, 27.
- Baron J, Contreras J L, et al., Making rules: The Governance of the Standard Development Organizations & their Policies on IPR, JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 29655 EN, March 2019.
- Antony T, Competition Policy Roots of Intellectual Property Law: A Reflection, 2021, 10.1017/9781108157827.008.